Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

BELLAHOUSTON HOSPITAL, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he has yet come to any decision with the Glasgow Corporation as to the future of Bellahouston Hospital; if it is proposed to have it closed; and if he can state what arrangements have been made for other hospital accommodation in the Glasgow area, or if it is intended to have patients removed to the east of Scotland?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement which I made last Thursday in reply to three questions by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a public statement has appeared in the Press to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman has come to an arrangement with the Glasgow Corporation?

Major TRYON: I think the hon. Member will understand that I must await the official reply. I have asked for an extension, and I hope to get a satisfactory reply, but I cannot publish the reply till I get it.

ORPHANS' PENSIONS.

Mr. HAYES: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether withdrawals from motherless children's accumulated balances have been sanctioned with or without the recommendation of war pension committees; and what, in general, are the purposes to which these withdrawals have been applied.

Major TRYON: Withdrawals from balances of an orphan's pension accumulated under the Ministry scheme are made, in accordance with the terms of the scheme, only after a recommendation of the war pensions committee. The purposes for which such withdrawals have been made are mainly for equipment, including tools, clothing, etc., in connection with the calling adopted by the child.

MEDICAL SERVICE, DUNDEE.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether there is any intention of providing Dundee with only a part-time office at which a medical officer resident in Aberdeen will attend three times weekly; and, if so, whether he will be prepared to reconsider the proposal on presentation of grounds urged by the British Legion in the interest of the many ex-service men's appeals having yet to be dealt with?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. The hypothetical medical arrangements to which he refers in his question are, in fact, those which already exist at Dundee, where for more than a year past the facilities at the disposal of pensioners have not involved attendance by a medical officer otherwise than on a part-time basis. No complaints have been reported to me. The medical service is working well and will not be affected by any reduction in the general office arrangements which may be necessitated by the natural decline in the volume of work.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider the idea of appointing a local medico to act part time, to obviate the possibility of danger in special cases arising between Tuesday and Friday?

Major TRYON: I gather from the question that the hon. Member has been misinformed by the British Legion. In case
of emergency the services of an examining medical officer resident in Dundee are available.

SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.

Mr. HARDIE: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received any applications from ex-service organisations on the question of the seven years' limit; and whether any proposals are to be announced shortly?

Major TRYON: I have seen a Memorandum from Glasgow, which was not, however, addressed to me. Among other things it contains a misstatement of the position and practice of the Ministry in this matter. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have nothing to add to the statements I have already on more than one occasion made to the House regarding the arrangements which I have been empowered to make to consider exceptional cases arising beyond the time limit referred to.

Mr. HARDIE: If I present the right hon. Gentleman with cases will he then give me a reply?

Major TRYON: I shall be glad to consider any cases the hon. Member sends me. He has only sent four such cases in the last five years, and the first of those cases was rejected under the seven years' limit by the Labour Government.

Mr. OLIVER: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any request made to his Department, arising out of the seven years' arrangement for pensioners in whose case a new form of ailment supervenes, like neurasthenia, in consequence of the treatment that has been received and the number of operations they have undergone and who have been excluded from consideration on the ground of a seven years' limit?

Major TRYON: Any cases of that sort would be considered in the light of the evidence.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to alter the limit of seven years now, in view of the fact that the death of the late Earl Haig was certified as having been caused through service in the War?

Major TRYON: I am not prepared to reverse a decision which has been maintained
by successive Governments and embodies the unanimous decision of the House of Commons, but I am prepared, as my hon. Friend knows well, to consider exceptional cases beyond the limit.

Mr. OLIVER: Does the original reply mean that the right hon: Gentleman does not contemplate any change in practice in regard to the seven years' limit?

Major TRYON: I am certainly not prepared to recommend a repeal of the law, but I am prepared to consider exceptional cases, and as far as my experience goes, exceptional cases are being dealt with satisfactorily.

Major OWEN: Is it not the fact that when applications are made to any area office after the seven years' limit they are always turned down?

Major TRYON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entirely misinformed. I wonder that he is not aware that I have already informed the House that a considerable number of these cases have gone through, and arrangements are in force under which any evidence in support of cases outside the seven years' limit can be considered.

Major OWEN: Have those cases to be submitted to the Minister, or are they considered at the area office?

Major TRYON: They are, of course, dealt with in the first instance at the area office.

EX-SERVICE MEN (RE-SETTLEMENT GRANTS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the amount standing to the credit of the Civil Liabilities (Military Service) Commissioners; the number of claims that have been made and the amount of money disbursed; the number of claims outstanding and the conditions under which belated claims may be made?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The sum voted for this service in the current year is £10,000. Up to December, 1927, 321,092 claims had been received and the grants paid amounted to £3,986,487. One hundred and two claims are now outstanding. Grants can still be made in exceptional cases, such as those of men
who have been almost continuously on treatment with allowances from the Ministry of Pensions since discharge from the forces, or in lieu of training, or after a period of institutional training in substitution for a full or partial improvership.

POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are proposing to take to give effect to the Finlay Committee Reports on legal aid for poor persons?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Several recommendations in the First Report were given effect to by the Poor Prisoners (Counsel and Solicitor) Rules No. 537 of 1927, and the Costs of Poor Prisoners Defence Regulations No. 538 of 1927, which were sent to all Courts with Home Office letters, calling attention also to the recommendation in paragraph 13 as to the desirability of early grant of legal aid in criminal proceedings. Other recommendations in the First Report require further consideration and I fear I shall not be able to propose legislation during this busy Session. The recommendation in the Final Report is for the Lord Chancellor to consider, and I understand that my Noble Friend has been in communication with the Law Society upon it.

ALIENS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 8.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case at the East Ham Police Court, when five Chinamen admitted they had not the authority permitting them to land in this country; and if he has any information showing how foreigners of this type can evade the law and settle in this country?

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether the police raids which have recently been made upon the Chinese quarters in several ports have produced any evidence that Chinese are being secretly introduced into this country without passports?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having reason to think that arrangements to bring Chinamen into this country by irregular means were in existence, I determined recently on a search of Chinese establishments. The five Chinamen referred to in the question by the hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) were arrested in the course of this search. These cases must be considered sub judice at present, and it is not, I think, desirable that I should at any time specify in detail the information which has come into my possession as to the methods of those who have been responsible for the irregularities. I can assure the House that I am keeping a very sharp watch on this matter.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Chinamen have recently been arrested at the Embassy Club and the Kit-Cat Club?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the hon. Member has more knowledge than I have.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I thought perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might impart some information about the Kit-Cat Club.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he made a similar search in West End restaurants and hotels he would find a large number of other nationalities Who got in by irregular means?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman will place any information at my disposal.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's job or mine to exclude aliens?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is the job of all loyal Englishmen to assist the law.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 9.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a number of persons of foreign birth who have resided in this country for a long number of years and who have excellent characters, and who in some cases served in the War and in others had sons and relatives serving, are kept from securing citizenship of this country by the fee
charged; and if he will consider lowering this fee and making character and length of residence the main test for citizenship?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not aware that the present fee of £10, which I do not consider too much for the high privilege of British nationality, acts as a serious deterrent to would-be applicants for naturalisation, and the number of applications I receive does not suggest this. I have always regarded character and length of residence, in conjunction with assimilation of British ideas and habits, as the principal qualifications for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation.

Mr. STEPHEN: 26.
asked the Home Secretary the number of Chinese who have been arrested in this country since 1st February, the grounds of arrest, and the time detained; and how many were released without any charges being made against them and the charges made against those who have not been released?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that I am not in a position to supply the particulars asked for by the hon. Member.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last fortnight there have been many arrests made of Chinese people in various restaurants and clubs?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said, in answer to a question earlier in the day, that I had directed searches to be made of all Chinese haunts, because I had reason to believe that Chinese were coming in without proper passports.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these Chinese haunts was the Embassy Club and the other the Kit-Cat Club, and is he aware——

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: These particular cases ought to be put down on the Paper.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that some of the Chinese who have been taken to the police station by the police were put into cells for two or three hours and that when it was found that their
papers were in order they were released; and will he make inquiries into the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite impossible to answer questions of detail of that kind, but, if the hon. Member will give me notice, I will inquire into any particular case.

SUNDAY TRADING (MEAT SALES)

Sir R. THOMAS: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a circular letter from the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations pointing out the increase in Sunday trading in meat; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to check this practice?

Mr. DENNISON: 25.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the growth of the practice of selling fresh meat on Sundays; and does he propose to introduce legislation to deal with the matter provided he has not the power under existing Acts or Orders?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by the hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Cluse) on the 16th of last month.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (NOISE).

Sir R. THOMAS: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has observed that the measures which he took last year against many owners of noisy motor vehicles have not resulted in any general improvement; and whether he contemplates taking fresh action with a view to combating this nuisance?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think there are signs of improvement. Apart from continuing the measures to enforce the law which are already in operation, I do not propose any fresh action at present.

Sir R. THOMAS: What action has the right hon. Gentleman taken since I asked my last question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I try to remember all the hon. Gentleman's questions. I am pursuing the even tenour of my way.

TAXICABS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether the proposal to allow advertisements inside or outside taximeter cabs in the London metropolitan district has again been before him; and, if so, what is his intention with regard to this proposal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This matter is dealt with in the Report of the recent Committee which I appointed, and the Report is now under my consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that advertisements will not be allowed in or outside taxi-cabs without the House being consulted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I cannot give any such assurance.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an Imperial City. Surely there should be some public vehicles without advertisements in them?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask if some of these advertisements are not Imperial works of art?

ROAD GRANTS (BRITISH STONE).

Mr. EVERARD: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider an alteration in the present method of allocating grants from the Road Fund for the maintenance of roads, so that those local authorities who use the largest proportion of British road-stone shall receive larger grants than those who use a large proportion of foreign materials?

Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. While fully sharing my hon. Friend's desire for the widest possible use of British materials, my right hon. Friend does not consider the suggested method of encouragement practicable. Circulars urging the use of British materials wherever reasonably practicable were issued by the Government to all local authorities, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the latest such circular.

Mr. EVERARD: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to look into the question of the imports of foreign road materials, and the number of people in the industry in this country who are on part-time?

Mr. PENNY: I will convey the hon. Member's request to my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the more these commodities are protected, the higher the price will go?

FACTORY INSPECTION (SCOT- LAND).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 15.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that in a large number of factories situated in the West of Scotland particularly employing young female labour factory inspectors rarely, if ever, visit; and what steps he is prepared to take to secure safety by having proper inspection made?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member exaggerates the position. I am informed that out of 157 factories in the West of Scotland employing young girls which were not inspected last year, 86 had been visited within a period of 15 months and all but six of them within two years. I have repeatedly stated that I am not satisfied with the present strength of the inspectorate and that I propose to set up a Committee to examine the question. As the Committee would have to take account of the new situation created by the Factories Bill, I had not contemplated appointing it until the Bill had been passed. I am very anxious, however, particularly as the Bill has been postponed till next year, that no time should be lost, and I am proposing to advance the commencement of this inquiry and proceed with the appointment of the Committee in the autumn.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the nature of the Committee which he intends to set up?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Well, it will be intelligent, and comprehensive, and represent the interests, I hope, of all parts of the country.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I expected that a Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman would be intelligent, but he seems to have misapprehended the question that I wished to ask. I wanted to ask whether it was to be a Select Committee or a Departmental Committee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think a Departmental Committee will be quite satisfactory, and I do not want to impose upon Members the burden of sitting upon a Select Committee during the Autumn.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Why does the right hon. Gentleman want another Committee at all? If he wants more factory inspectors, why does he not appoint them?

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has it not been admitted by several of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors that the number of factory inspectors has been for many years grossly inadequate?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not scrupled to admit myself in this House that it is inadequate.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Why do you not appoint more?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a question of finance very largely. In addition, there has to be considered the question of the further possibility of a new Factory Bill being passed. All that has to be taken into consideration. It is no good making two bites at one cherry.

Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that we have many questions on the Paper to-day.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 16.
asked the Home Secretary the amount of compensation paid in 1927 under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and the number of persons who were paid compensation for less than four weeks?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that the figures for 1927 are not available and cannot be ready for some months yet. A number of the returns have yet to come in and the tabulation of the returns takes a considerable time.

Mr. TINKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when the return will be available?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think about the middle of the year.

GREYHOUND RACING (TRACK, ILFORD).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether a greyhound racing company is at this moment in negotiation to complete the purchase of a site and to erect a greyhound racing track at Ilford; and, seeing that the borough council and the great majority of the residents of Ilford are opposed to this track, will he say whether he will consider taking steps to make the erection of a greyhound racing track conditional upon the sanction of the local authority?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) on the 23rd February.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY.

Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he intends to set up an inquiry into the measures to be taken in order to protect the community from the consequences arising from the
procreation of the mentally unfit?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Monday to a question on the same subject put by the hon. and gallant Member for Southport (Sir G. Dalrymple-White).

ANTHRAX.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of cases of anthrax in this country for the last three years for which statistics are available, and the origin of infection in each case?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can give only the figures for cases reported from premises under the Factory Acts. The information can best be shown in tabular form, and with my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


Reported Cases of Anthrax in Factories and other premises under the Factory and Workshop Acts, in the years 1925 to 1927.


Origin of the Infection.
1925.
1926.
1927.
Total.


Wool and Hair (other than Horsehair)
…
…
265
162
181
608


Horsehair or Bristles
…
…
32
81
31
144


Hides and Skins
…
…
183
151
131
465


Other*
…
…
1
3
1
5


Total
…
…
4810
424
353
12517

The principal figures give the number of cases; the small figures give the number of deaths.

* The suspected materials in these cases were:—


Feathers
…
…
…
…
1


Bones
…
…
…
…
1


Felt or tanned leather
…
…
…
…
1


Refuse from animal products
…
…
…
…
1


Not ascertained
…
…
…
…
1







5

SMALL-POX (VAGRANTS).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any evidence that, during the recent outbreaks of small-pox, the disease in many instances was spread from place to place by persons admitted to the casual wards of Poor Law institutions; and whether he will consider amending the existing legislation so that the medical officer of health shall be empowered to detain and isolate for the necessary period persons in these institutions who are suspected to be suffering from or who have been in contact with small-pox or other infectious diseases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have in consequence given instructions that, with a view to detecting cases of smallpox, all persons admitted to the casual wards of Poor Law institutions shall be medically examined. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer given on this subject on the 5th instant to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards).

JAM MANUFACTURE (GLUCOSE).

Captain CAZALET: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is a shortage of sugar in this country; whether he is aware of the extent to which jams and other preserves are still being manufactured with glucose as a
substitute; and if he will make inquiries into this matter, with the view to restricting the continued use of glucose in these manufactures, if unnecessary, and as being against the interests of public health and pure food consumption?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that, so far as can be judged, there is no evidence of any shortage of cane sugar in this country. I understand that some manufacturers use a proportion of glucose in jam making, but the question of the proper composition of jam is a matter of interpretation of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, and I have no power to impose any special restrictions on the use of glucose. I am advised that no objection can be taken, on grounds of public health, to the use of pure glucose in food.

POLICE COURTS (MATRIMONIAL CASES).

Mr. SNELL: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the existing practice in regard to the figures of police court separations of husbands and wives is to include them in the criminal statistics under the head of quasi-criminal matters; and will he consider removing this reflection upon poor people, whose only remedy lies through a punitive court by including the figures in the civil and judicial statistics?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not, easy to think of an entirely suitable heading to cover the miscellaneous matters dealt with in certain parts of the criminal statistics, and it is for the general convenience to have the particulars shown in that volume; but I will consider whether a more suitable heading can be framed.

Mr. SNELL: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists with the system of investigation of matrimonial cases of separation, etc., by the police court administration; and will he consider the advisability of establishing special courts to deal with such cases affecting the poor?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen some criticisms, but I believe that the interests of persons of modest means have been well served by the extension of the jurisdiction of the Summary courts in these matters, and I know of no ground for considering any change of system.

WELSH PRISONERS, LIVERPOOL.

Major OWEN: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in the case of prisoners sent from North Wales to Walton Gaol, no official provision is made by which prisoners can be administered to by Welsh chaplains or seen by Welsh visitors; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has, I am afraid, been misinformed. Very complete arrangements exist for regular ministration to Welsh prisoners in Liverpool Prison by Welsh ministers, including weekly services on Sundays and meetings on Fridays. There are also two specially appointed Welsh visitors, while several officers of the prison speak Welsh.

Major OWEN: Is it not a fact that all these arrangements are purely voluntary and that no provision at all is made by the State for those prisoners who are compelled to be sent to Walton Gaol in Liverpool on account of the closing of the gaols in North Wales; and is it not part and parcel of the duty of the Home Office to provide for such men,
and to provide for them in their own language?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have told the hon. and gallant Member that we do provide for them. I have bad a very long report indeed from the Governor of Walton Prison. There is most ample provision made for the religious needs of all Welsh prisoners who go to that gaol, and a meeting of Welsh ministers in Liverpool arrange details.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are very few Welshmen in any prison?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to settle with his hon. and gallant Friend.

Major OWEN: Is it not a fact that no official provision is made for these prisoners, and that the provision to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is entirely voluntary and depends entirely upon individuals in Liverpool itself?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking the same question a second time.

PROSECUTION, CARNARVON (E. O. WILLIAMS).

Major OWEN: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Evan Owen Williams, who was brought to this country under an extradition warrant from his home, wife, and work in Canada upon a charge of which he was found to be not guilty at the recent Assizes in Carnarvon; whether he is aware that after the trial Mr. Williams was left stranded in this country to make his way back to Canada and his family as best he could, and that, in order to return, he had to borrow money and incur a debt of £56; and whether, in view of the special circumstances, something can be done to repay to this man the expenses incurred by him as the result of a charge of which he was proved to be not guilty?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that Williams was acquitted; but after inquiring closely into the circumstances of the prosecution, I do not see my way to make any payment in respect of the expenses he incurred.

FOREIGN FILMS (IMPORTATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27 and 29.
asked the Home Secretary (1) who advises him as to which cinematograph films coming from abroad he is to admit into this country or to prohibit from entering; and on what principle he acts when deciding whether to exclude or admit certain films;
(2) what steps he takes to prevent the importation into, and exhibition in, this country of cinematograph films to which he takes objection by reason of their being injurious to public morals, liable to cause a breach of the peace, or other reasons; whether, if so satisfied, he has ever made representations to the British Board of Film Censors or to chief constables, chairmen of watch committees, or other persons concerned; whether he, or any member of his Department or staff, had any part in banning the film Armoured Cruiser Potemkin, dealing with episodes which occurred some 23 years ago; and if he is aware that the film has been shown in many foreign cities, including Berlin and New York?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as they concern the general question of the censorship of cinematograph films, I can add nothing to the answers which I gave recently, especially a reply to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock on the 16th February. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, I have power to prevent the importation of any film as of other matter which is injurious to the public interest or security. Such a power is very rarely exercised, and before taking any action I should receive the advice of the officials of my Department. The particular film referred to was rejected by the Board of Film Censors after it was submitted to them. The Board consulted me about it, and I told them that I agreed with their decision and would support it. I understand that the film has been shown in some foreign countries but prohibited in others.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer as to who advises the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. Does the same gentleman advise him who advises the Foreign Secretary?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. The question is whether any of the powers which I exercise against the importation
of foreign films are only in cases where the films are injurious to the public weal. In that, I am advised by my legal authorities.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman an official status with the British Board of Film Censors, and can he say whether they decide or he decides whether consultations should take place between their officers and his officers in these matters?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The responsibility for exercising the prerogative of preventing films coming into this country which I believe to be injurious to the welfare of the country, rests upon nay shoulders alone. I am not bound to consult the Board of Film Censors, who are a purely voluntary body. I am advised on this question by my own legal advisers.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The right hon. Gentleman refers to prerogatives. Will he say whether he acts under any Statute, or under what aspect of the prerogative, in keeping out these films; and whether he sees the films before excluding them, or who sees them.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The prerogative, as the hon. Member probably knows, is the old standing right of the Sovereign of this country to provide for the well-being of this country, and those powers, such as they, are exercised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I do not see the films in question but I get reports on the films, and, after full consideration of the reports, I decide whether or not the films are of such a nature that I should prevent them from coming in.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman as Home Secretary is, in fact, exercising a political censorship?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 71.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury the reasons why a case containing films, brought by Mr. James Larkin from Moscow under bond, with the object of continuing under bond to Dublin, was held up by the Customs officials at Harwich, thus interrupting the journey of Mr. Larkin and the case to Dublin?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. These films were detained on my instructions in order that they might be examined. As a result of the examination no objection has been raised to their delivery.

DISCHARGED PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Captain CAZALET: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee of inquiry to ascertain in what way employers might be encouraged to give a fresh chance to those who have been imprisoned and are desirous of making a new start in life?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is certainly desirable to do everything possible to encourage employers to give a fresh start in life to deserving ex-prisoners, and I am glad to say that many employers help in this way. The problem of securing employment for ex-prisoners in these difficult times is under the constant consideration of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies attached to local prisons and in touch with local employers and others, and of the central bodies which organise the after-care of discharged prisoners and convicts, and I do not think that the setting up of a committee of inquiry would materially assist at this moment.

Captain CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present arrangements for dealing with these unfortunate men?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am in close touch with many of these societies and take a great personal interest in them, and I am satisfied that they are doing their work exceedingly well.

Mr. OLIVER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Ministry of Health on behalf of this class of prisoner, because when they go out of prison they are forbidden to receive any form of Poor Law relief, and the only means they have——

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the question on the Paper.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he will include in the Bill
for national health insurance provisions to enable any person working for himself to become an insured person provided that his income is within the limits laid down for national health insurance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF, STOURBRIDGE AND WEST BROMWICH.

Mr. WELLOCK: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the number of able-bodied men who applied for relief to the Stourbridge Board of Guardians during 1927; the number who were given relief in return for test work; the number who were offered the institution; and the number of those who refused to accept?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1927, 1,643 able-bodied men applied to the Stourbridge Board of Guardians for relief, 801 were granted relief upon the performance of test work, 18 were offered relief in an institution, and 11 refused the guardians' offer.

Mr. WELLOCK: 38.
asked the Minister of Health the number of applicants who received relief from the Stourbridge and also the West Bromwich Board of Guardians, respectively; the number of those who were ex-service men; and the number who received relief for the first time during the last six months or the last six months' period for which statistics are available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the lion. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I am informed that during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1927, 1,562 able-bodied men received relief from the Stourbridge Board of Guardians and that diring the six months ended 30th September, 1927, 3,847 applicants received relief from the West Bromwich Board of Guardians. Of the Stourbridge cases 355 were ex-service men and 80 received relief for the first time during the six months ended 30th September, 1927, and of the West Bromwich cases 781 were ex-service men and 310 received relief for the first time during the six months ended 30th September, 1927.

CASUAL WARDS.

Mr. GRUNDY: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, and Oxfordshire joint vagrancy committee that casual wards should only be on main roads and at distances of 15 to 20 miles apart; whether it is proposed to give effect to this proposal; and whether his Department has taken any steps in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison) on the 23rd ultimo.

Mr. GRUNDY: 47.
asked the Minister of Health the number of casual wards which supply mattresses to vagrants, the number of those which supply hammocks, and the number of those where neither mattresses nor hammocks are supplied; and whether it has been reported to him that, owing to the condition of the hammocks, the vagrants in some casual wards prefer to sleep on the bare floor?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are no recent statistics available to show the kind of sleeping accommodation provided in the casual wards throughout the country, but in 1925 there were 83 unions in which nothing but hammocks were provided, and 17 unions in which neither beds, bunks nor hammocks were provided. There are now only three unions in this last class, and in these three unions improvements are under consideration. I have received no adverse reports on the condition of the hammocks supplied in any casual ward.

RELIEF, DARLASTON, WEDNESBURY, AND TIPTON.

Mr. SHORT: 52.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons resident in Darlaston, Wednesbury, and Tipton, respectively, who were in receipt of Poor Law relief on the last available day in February?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Separate particulars are not furnished to my Department as regards the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in the areas mentioned, which are small in relation to the unions comprising them.

Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received similar
information before, and would he therefore supply it to me?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Member mean that he has received it from me?

Mr. SHORT: Yes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not got it now.

Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman not get this information for me, seeing that I have been supplied with it before?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will look into the matter.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. STEPHEN: 39.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of men and women, respectively, over 65 years of age at 1st January, 1928, who have received the old age pension under the 1925 Act up to date, and the number who were in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit whose claims have been disallowed under the new Act either to sickness benefit or to pension?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the latest figures available, the number of persons between the ages of 65 and 70 to whom pensions have been awarded is 523,937, but separate figures of men and women pensioners are not yet available. The information asked for in the second part of the question is not available and could only be obtained by a special examination of the sickness records of the 7,000 approved societies and branches followed by a comparison with the pensions records.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a large number of people in that position who have been refused pensions and also sick or disablement benefit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no record of the number of such persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

CONTRACT PRICES (SUBSIDY).

Mr. WELLOCK: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in case the building
of houses can be expedited under the condition of the reduced subsidy, he can give any guarantee that the price of houses will not be permitted to rise?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no reason why the recent reduction in prices should not be maintained, and I should certainly refuse consent to proposals for the erection of houses at prices which appeared to me to be excessive.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not the case that the fall in the price of houses is due to the fall in the demand and that as soon as the demand increases the prices will go up?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the fall in the price of houses is primarily due to the reduction in the subsidy.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: If the price of houses should show a tendency to rise, will the right hon. Gentleman not knock off a bit more from the subsidy?

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Sir BASIL PETO: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government contemplate any legislation amending the Rent Restrictions Act to enable the owners of single houses to have the use of their houses, purchased for their own occupation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement in regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Sir B. PETO: Has this question received the sympathetic consideration of the right hon. Gentleman? Can he say whether he thinks it possible to do anything in that direction?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the time has hardly come to consider that question yet, as the Act does not expire until the end of the year.

Mr. STEPHEN: When the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating such legislation, will he contemplate a reduction in the rents which were increased under the Rent Restrictions Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a hypothetical question.

OLD MOXLEY, WEDNESBURY.

Mr. SHORT: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the recent visit of an inspector to investigate the housing conditions at Moxley, Wednesbury, any action is contemplated; and, if so, of what nature?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the area at Old Moxley, to which the hon. Member refers, is under the consideration of the town council of Wednesbury. I may add that a scheme under Part II of the Housing Act, 1925, involving the rehousing of 56 persons has recently been submitted by the town council and also a scheme for the erection of 80 houses by the council at Mesty Croft.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has given his sanction?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The sanction has not been given yet.

SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).

Mr. SAVERY: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill to amend the Housing Act, 1925, so as to grant just compensation for disturbance to holders of business property in what are known as unhealthy areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole subject of slum improvement is receiving my immediate consideration, but I am not yet in a position to state when it will be possible to bring in legislation.

Mr. WELLS: Is it not the case that the present injustice of the Act is holding up the clearance of slum areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I believe that is so.

Mr. GROTRIAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that he was chairman of a Committee which recommended that something should be done in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I have not forgotten that fact.

NOTTINGHAM.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the statement
in the last Report of the Poor Law guardians of Nottingham as to the serious overcrowding and house shortage in that city; and what action it is proposed to take in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention had not been drawn to this Report, but I am confident that the city council can be relied upon to take all necessary steps in connection with the housing needs of the city. The council have built, or aided the building, of 4,651 houses and have authority for the erection of a further 2,200, a considerable number of which are in course of construction; they are also carrying out a slum clearance scheme of some magnitude.

SUBSIDISED HOUSES (LETTING).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that on 1st February, 1927, 227,094 houses were under construction or authorised, and on 1st February, 1928, the number was only 146,761; and, seeing that this drop is due to the fact that the demand for houses for sale is being met, whilst the demand for houses for renting is still serious, particularly among the poorer wage earners, whether he will use his utmost influence to stimulate local authorities to undertake wide schemes of building for letting, and to this end will he consider restoring the subsidy to its original amount for this class of house?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figures quoted by my Noble Friend were given by me in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock) on the 23rd ultimo. It has for some time past, been the policy of my Department to encourage the erection, under the subsidy scheme, of houses which can be let at rentals within the means of the less well-paid workers, and a Circular, which was issued by me more than a year ago, referred to this matter. The reduction of the subsidy has been followed by a considerable fall in the prices of houses, thus facilitating the erection of this type of house. I am afraid that the course suggested by my Noble Friend would only result in a return to higher prices.

ZINOVIEFF LETTER.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the
new information that has come to light in connection with the document known as the Zinovieff Letter, it is proposed to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the matter; and, as the said letter was alleged to have been sent to the Communist party of Great Britain, particularly involving its representative member, the late Mr. Arthur McManus, whether the Committee will be given such Terms of Reference as will permit the investigation of this allegation?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if a Debate is to be conducted upon a very mysterious affair we want some preliminary data? Does he not see the necessity that he should, before the Debate can be intelligently conducted, supply the information which he alone is able to supply?

The PRIME MINISTER: It, is more courteous to give a reply to the Leader of the Opposition than to reply to a question from the Back Benches.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any minute in existence of the meeting between the late Sir Eyre Crowe, Mr. J. D. Gregory, and others in the forenoon of 24th October, 1924, in Sir Eyre Crowe's private room, at which meeting Sir Eyre Crowe is alleged to have announced his intention to publish the protest note to the Soviet charge d'affaires; if so, will be cause it to be laid before this House and, if such minute is not available, will he ascertain if Sir Eyre Crowe decided to publish the protest note or left it to Mr. Gregory's decision?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I know, Mr. Speaker, if the Ministers of the Crown are to be at liberty not to reply to questions
because subsequently the matter may be discussed? On all topics we have debates in this House, on health, pensions and War Office questions, and does a prospective Debate in this House entitle Ministers to hide their own criminal actions?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put his questions in a proper form, before I can deal with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BOARD OF HEALTH, WALES.

Mr. SKELTON: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether he contemplates introducing legislation to abolish the Welsh Board of Health?

Sir R. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask what the hon. Member knows about Wales?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is a matter of privilege for an hon. Member to ask a question about Wales.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I may with advantage refer the hon. Member to the statement as to the constitution of this Board contained in an answer to the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Campbell) on the 11th April, 1927.

Mr. SKELTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that health and other services are efficiently conducted in Wales by a Welsh Board of Health?

Sir R. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman takes any steps in this matter, which affect Wales, will he consult the Welsh Members?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not taking any steps in this matter.

Mr. SKELTON: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that from the Departmental point of view the Ministry of Health is not embarrassed by the presence of a Board in Wales?

Major OWEN: Is not Wales entitled to a Board of this kind just as much as Scotland?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the Board's
system of conducting health affairs in Wales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not proposing to make any alteration.

RESIGNATIONS AND DISMISSALS (PENSIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether since in neither case can a pension be paid, he will state in what respects dismissal from the Civil Service differs from permission to resign as the result of an adverse Report?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The distinction marks a difference in the degree of culpability of the officer concerned; the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that there are occasions on which an officer's conduct, though not so culpable as to justify "dismissal from the service" has nevertheless been such as to make his continued employment in the service contrary to the public interest.

SIR GEORGE BARSTOW.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what grounds Sir George Barstow, late Controller of Supply, resigned from the Civil Service and, if on the grounds of ill-health, was the medical certificate usually required in such cases supplied; and what was the allowance granted to him under the Superannuation Acts?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Sir George Barstow was offered by His Majesty's Government and accepted in 1927, the appointment of Government Director, of whom there are two, on the Board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. No payment of pension is involved at present. But as Government representation on the Board is "approved employment" for a civil award under Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1914, Sir George will be eligible, if he retires from his present employment after attaining the age of 60 or on account of permanent ill-health, for the award of pension in respect of his service prior to taking up this directorship.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PROMOTIONS).

Mr. DENNISON: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether promotions in the principal officer class are made only on
the recommendation or with the, concurrence of the permanent head of the Ministry; whether any such promotions have been made within the last three months; and, if so, what are the names, service, and grades before and after promotion of the officials concerned?

Major TRYON: The responsibility for promotions within the Department, as for the whole of the business of the Department, rests solely with me. In the exercise of this responsibility I should naturally avail myself of the advice of the permanent head of the Department. Two promotions of principal officers have been made during the last three months, Mr. C. J. G. Tate, O.B.E., with 27¾ years' service being promoted from Controller, Pension Issue Office, to Assistant Secretary and Mr. T. J. Arnold, C.B.E., with 31 years' service, from Acting Principal Clerk to Acting Controller, Pension Issue Office.

ANTIQUES (EXPORTATION).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that a great number of English antiques of historical interest are going out of the country, he will consider the advisability of prohibiting or, alternatively, imposing a duty restricting the exportation of such articles to foreign countries?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The suggestion contained in my hon. and gallant Friend's question has been noted.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investments have been held by the Government since 1914, showing, for each investment, the Department concerned, the date and cost of acquiring the investment, the amount received as gross interest or dividend for each year since 1914, the date of and the amount received on disposal, and the present market value?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 8th December to the hon. Member for the Rotherhithe Division (Mr. B.
Smith). I am sending him a copy of that answer

GENERAL STRIKE, 1926 (COST).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the direct additional cost to each of the chief public Departments due to the general strike of 1926?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A statement showing the Exchequer outgoings in respect of the assistance given by the Government in maintaining essential services during the emergency in 1926 is being prepared for the use of the Public Accounts Committee, and I should be glad to let my hon. and gallant Friend have a copy. He will, of course, appreciate that these figures of outgoings in no way reflect the vast cost both to the State and to the community of the long-drawn dispute of that year.

Mr. BATEY: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer circulate these figures so that all hon. Members can see them, and will he at the same time state what it cost the Government to assist the coal-owners during the dispute?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is my duty to answer the first part of the question in a manner satisfactory to the wishes of the House; and if there is any desire on the part of hon. Members to have these papers, they shall be circulated.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope not, because it would be out of order.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of national savings certificates which have been redeemed between 1st April, 1927, and 29th February, 1928, and the interest accrued thereon; and what is the total amount of new savings certificates taken up during the same period?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement. That is the usual and, I think, the most convenient occasion for reviewing these matters.

Mr. AMMON: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether national savings certificates which have reached 10 years' maturity and are allowed to remain for a longer period are counted as fresh purchases or investments; and what is the number and value of reinvestments of certificates which have recently matured?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the increase in the national indebtedness between the years 1923–24 and 1928–29 caused by the accretion of the interest due on national savings certificates; whether any special provision has been made for meeting this liability; and, if not, whether the increase of indebtedness under this head is to be regarded as a set-off against the amount of debt liquidated during those years by the sinking funds?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The interest accrued on certificates outstanding amounted on 31st March, 1923, to about £65 millions, and on 31st March, 1927, to about £121 millions, an increase of £56 millions. Later figures are not available. In reply to the last two parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 998 of the Report of the Colwyn Committee on National Debt and Taxation (Command Paper 2800).

LABOUR GAZETTE (SALES).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can explain the reduction in sales of the Ministry of Labour Gazette from £1,411 in 1926 to £1,286 in 1927, with a corresponding reduction of copies sold from 56,445 to 51,423; and what steps he proposes to take to make this journal issued by his Department more widely known and fulfil the objects for which it was founded by the Ministry?

Mr. SAMUEL: In the year 1925 special publicity work in respect of the Ministry of Labour Gazette was carried out and resulted in increased sales in that year
and, to a lesser extent, in 1926. I attribute the decline in 1927 to the loss of additional subscribers obtained in 1925. Special efforts are now being made to induce such persons to renew their subscriptions. The Gazette is advertised in all suitable Government publications and, so far as funds permit, in appropriate newspapers and periodicals and by the issue of special leaflets to potential subscribers.

Colonel WOODCOCK: In view of the fact that this publication is of great use to the country and the industrial world, will the Financial Secretary take means to advertise it in order to make it better known?

Mr. SAMUEL: We do advertise it so far as funds permit.

REPARATION (COAL).

Mr. WALLHEAD: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount and value of coal paid over by Germany in 1926–27 under the reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles to the various countries concerned in such payment; and when these payments under the treaty ceases?

Mr. SAMUEL: As the reply is a long one and contains many figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I am informed that the deliveries of coal effected by Germany under Annex V to the reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles in the third year of the Dawes Annuity (1st September, 1926, to 31st August, 1927) amount to 2,778,485 metric tons, the estimated value, including the cost of transport to the German frontier, being 58,898,905 gold marks. These deliveries were effected exclusively to France. In addition, deliveries of coal were made by Germany on reparation account during this period, under the system of commercial contracts provided for by the London Agreement of August, 1924, to an estimated amount of 6,363,647 metric tons to France (provisionally valued at 127,702,321 gold marks) and 2,650,165 metric tons to Italy (provisionally valued at 54,490,485 gold marks). The option for deliveries of coal
to the Allied Powers under the Treaty lasts for 10 years. The exact date of its termination has not been settled, but will presumably be the 31st January, 1930. No limit of time is laid down in the London Agreement for the delivery of coal on reparation account by means of commercial contracts. The foregoing figures include deliveries of coke and lignite at their coal equivalent.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES.

Mr. STAMFORD: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the minimum rates of wages, with hours, for male and female agricultural workers in the various areas; the average minimum rates; and the percentage increase over pre-War rates?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am circulating in the

MINIMUM RATES of WAGES for ordinary MALE WORKERS of 21 years of age and over and FEMALE WORKERS of 18 years of age and over as in force on 7th March, 1928, in England and Wales.

Male Workers.
Female Workers.


Agricultural Wages Committee Area.
Minimum Weekly Wage
Hours per week in respect of which minimum weekly wage is payable
Minimum hourly rate.
Hours in respect of which minimum rate (where specified).





Summer.
Winter.





s.
d.


d.



Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire.
30
6
50
48
6
—


Berkshire
30
0
50
50
5*
—


Buckinghamshire
31
0
50
48
6
—


Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely.
30
0
50
48
5½
8 per day.


Cheshire
35
0
54
54
6
—


Cornwall and Scilly Isles
31
0
51
51
5†
—


Cumberland and Westmorland.
32
6
54
—
5
—


31
0
—
48
5
—


Derbyshire
8d.per hour

54 (guaranteed).
54 (guaranteed).
5
—


Devonshire
32
6
52
50
5†
—


Dorsetshire
30
0
51
48
5
51 per week, Summer. 48 per week, Winter.


Durham
31
0
50
50
2s. 6d. per day
8 per day.


Essex
30
0
50
48
5½†
—


Gloucestershire
30
0
50
48
5
—


Hampshire and Isle of Wight.
30
6
51
48
5
—


Herefordshire
31
0
53
48
4½
46½ per week.


Hertfordshire
31
0
48
48
24s. per week.
48 per week.

OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the minimum weekly wage for ordinary male agricultural workers of 21 years of age and over and the hours in respect of which it is payable and the minimum rates for adult female workers in every area in England and Wales.

Following is the statement:

The average of the minimum weekly wake for ordinary adult male workers in the, various areas is 31s. 8d. This represents an increase of 76 per cent. over the estimated weekly wage of 18s. in 1914, but in computing this figure no account has been taken of overtime payments or additional earnings at special seasons, nor has any allowance been made for the reduction in working hours since 1914.

The average minimum wage for adult female workers is 5⅓d. per hour. No precise information is available as to the wages of such workers before the War.

Agricultural Wages Committee Area.
Male Workers.
Female Workers.


Minimum weekly wage.
Hours per week in respect of which minimum weekly wage is payable.
Minimum hourly rate.
Hours in respect of which minimum rate is payable (where specified).


Summer.
Winter.



s.
d.


d.



Kent
32
6
52
48
5½
8 perday.


Lancashire:


Southern Area
33
6
50
50
6
—


Eastern Area
42
0
60
60
—


Northern Area
37
6
60
60
—


Leicestershire
34
0
54
54
5
—


Rutlandshire
32
6


Lincolushire:


Holland
35
0
50
48
6
—


Kesteven and Lindsey
32
0
52
48
5½
—


Middlesex
34
4½
50
—
25s. 0d.
50 per week, Summer.



33
0
—
48
24s. 0d.
48 per week, Winter.







d.



Monmouthshire
32
0
50
48
6
—


Norfolk
30
0
50
48
5
50 per week, Summer.








48 per week, Winter


Northamptonshire and Soke of Peterborough.
30
0
50
48
56
—


Northumberland
32
0
52½
48
5
52½ per week, Summer.








48 per week, Winter.


Nottinghamshire
32
0
50
50
5
—


Oxfordshire
30
0
50
48
6
—


Shropshire
32
6
54
54
5
—


Somersetshire
32
0
52
50
6
—


Staffordshire
31
6
54
54
5
54 per week.


Suffolk
30
0
50
48
5†
—


Surrey
32
3
50
50
5½
50 per week.


Sussex
31
0
52
48
5
52 per week Summer.








48 per week, Winter.


Warwickshire
30
0
50
48
5
50 per week, Summer.








48 per week, Winter.


Wiltshire
30
0
50
50
5
—


Worcestershire
30
0
53
48
4½
8 per day.


Yorkshire:


East Riding
35
0
52½
48
6
44 per week.


North Riding
33
0
52½
48
6
44 per week.


West Riding
36
0
52½
48
6
44 per week.


Anglesey and Caernarvonshire.
31
0
50
50
6
—


Carmarthenshire
31
0
54
54
5
8 per day.


Denbighshire and Flintshire
30
6
50
50
5
8½ per day.


Glamorganshire
34
0
52
48
6
8½ per day.


Merionethshire and Montgomeryshire.
31
6
54
54
5
—


Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire.
31
0
54
52
5
8 per day.


Radnorshire and Brecknockshire.
31
0
54
48
5
48 per week.


*19 years of age and over.


†20 years of age and over.


†21 years of age and over.

WHEAT PRICES.

Mr. STAMFORD: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average prices of

British wheat per 480 lbs. for 1924, 1925 and 1926; the percentage increases over the average of 1911–13; and the lowest

and highest monthly average price in each year 1924 to 1926?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to an identical question put to me by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) on the 8th of December last, a copy of which I am sending to him.

OTTOMAN LOAN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will inquire as to the proportion of the interest on bonds of the Guaranteed Ottoman Loan of 1855 now paid to British residents, so that the French Government may pay their share to their own nationals and relieve us of our obligation in the matter?

Mr. SAMUEL: I fear that it would not be practicable to adopt this suggestion. The bonds in question are bearer bonds and, as the right hon. and gallant Member will appreciate, it would therefore be a matter of extreme difficulty to ascertain where they are held or to differentiate between bondholders of different nationalities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Member content to continue to allow this country to bear absolutely on its shoulders a burden which should be borne jointly by ourselves and the French Government? How much longer is it to continue?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is not the question which the right hon. and gallant Member has on the Paper.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It arises out of the question. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to take any steps to see where the dividends on these bearer bonds are paid—whether it is in France to French accounts, or here to British accounts, and to distinguish accordingly?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think they are payable in London, but I am not sure. For obvious reasons, it would be utterly impossible for us to distinguish in the manner desired by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SPANISH ORANGES (PRICES).

Mr. HAYES: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the low prices during January and February for oranges imported from Spain into Liverpool and the high prices being charged to consumers; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Such information as is available goes to show that the fall in wholesale prices of certain cheaper varieties or oranges in Liverpool during January and February was reflected in retail prices.

Mr. HAYES: If the information is put before the right hon. Gentleman, showing that this is so, will he refer the matter to the Food Council, in order that some steps may be taken so that the advantage of these periodic gluts may be passed on to the poor children and other consumers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like to see this information—which conflicts with a good many Liverpool figures which my Department has been collecting—before I commit myself to any decision, either on facts or on expectations.

AUTOMATIC SCALES.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to issue regulations governing the use of automatic scales for counter use?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All self-indicating machines are required to conform to the general requirements of the Weights and Measures Regulations, particularly as regards accuracy. It is recognised, however, that additional regulations are needed on certain points for the guidance of makers and users of this type of machine, and the matter will be dealt with in the course of the general revision of the regulations which is in contemplation.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to when that general revision is likely to take place?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The work is being done now, but, as to when it will be completed I cannot say. It means a great deal of work in the Department, but, of course, the hon. Member realises that no weighing machine goes out until it has been approved.

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. T. SHAW: 80.
asked the Minister of Labour whether a statement was made to the conference of labour ministers in London that His Majesty's Government was unable to ratify the Washington Hours Convention; whether there was any disagreement between the Ministers; and, if so, on what point or points this lack of agreement was shown?

Mr. BETTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The London Conference formulated a series of agreed conclusions with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar. I am not aware that there was any disagreement as to the text of these conclusions, but as I pointed out in my speech on 27th February my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, felt and expressed considerable doubt as to whether they were not encroaching upon revision, and I cannot say that there was agreement on this point.

COTTON INDUSTRY (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the conferences between the operatives and employers in the cotton industry have broken down, and that certain employers are taking action contrary to the agreement existing between the employers and the trade union representatives; and whether the Department is taking any steps to avert a lock-out or cessation of work?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware of the failure, so far, of the two sides to arrive at agreement as to the procedure to be adopted for the examination of the various questions affecting the conditions in the industry. I am not aware that any action has been taken which would indicate that a lock-out or cessation of
work is contemplated, and I venture to hope that discussion in accordance with the constitutional arrangements within the industry will enable the parties to reach an amicable settlement.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a trade dispute at the present time in Stalybridge, owing to the owners' attempt to re-establish a 55½ hours week?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is the subject of another question on the Paper.

Mr. T. SHAW: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the fact that the Aqueduct Mills Company, of Stalybridge, have commenced to run their mills 55½ hours per week; that women and girls are employed in the mills; and that an arrangement between the employers' and workers' organisations provide for a 48-hour working week; and whether, in view of the repeated declarations that the Government accept the principle of the 48-hour working week, he will take such steps, whether by legislation or by other methods, as will prevent the reintroduction of the 55½-hour working week, particularly for women and young persons?

Mr. BETTERTON: There is constitutional machinery within the industry for dealing with the matters referred to in the question, and I have no doubt action will be taken to put this machinery in operation. In these circumstances I do not think it desirable for me, at this juncture, to make any further comment on the position.

Mr. SHAW: Are we to take it for granted that the Government have no intention of taking action to stop this practice in the country?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman must not read anything into my answer which I did not say.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Will the hon. Gentleman see that his Department watches carefully this most interesting experiment, which may have very valuable results?

Mr. HILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this firm in Stalybridge are not members of the Masters' Federation, that they have never signed an agreement
with the operatives, and that no agreement has been broken? They are an independent firm.

Mr. BETTERTON: That, Sir, I under stand is one of those questions now sub judice, and it would, therefore, be improper for me to deal further with the matter.

Mr. WELLOCK: Are not the conditions indicated in this question a reason for pushing forward with the Washington Convention?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. But the hon. Member's question indicates the ambiguity which arises in regard to the Washington Convention, and is, itself, a justification of our policy of clearing up these ambiguities by revision.

Mr. SHAW: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have repeatedly stated their adoption of the principle of the 48 hours' week; is it not the case that this is a deliberate breach of that principle, and that the Government have already said that they have no intention of interfering in the matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: Again, the question of the right hon. Gentleman is a complete justification of the Government's policy of revision, and I hope, therefore, we may have the support of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that there can be anything valuable in an experiment which consists of raising the hours to 55½ hours a week, as indicated by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson)?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to debate the question.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, SCOTLAND.

Sir HARRY HOPE: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, seeing that in certain districts parents of children who are over 12 years of age and who reside more than three miles from a secondary school are not granted the option of choosing whether those children attend the local parish school or travel to the secondary school more than three miles distant, he will take steps to ensure that thin option is not denied in any case?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): If I understand my hon. Friend's question aright, so much depends upon particular circumstances that a general reply could hardly fail to be misleading. Perhaps he will be good enough to let me have details of the cases he has in mind when I will look into them carefully and let him have the result.

TRANSJORDANIA (AGREEMENT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the terms of the treaty with Transjordania; and whether the treaty provides for a liquidation of the debt to Great Britain or a reduction in the annual loan advanced by British taxpayers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the agreement provides for contributions from the British Treasury in aid of the revenues of Trans-Jordan by way of grant or loan for so long as the revenues of Trans-Jordan are insufficient to meet the expenses of administration. As I informed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in reply to a question which he asked on the 23rd March, 1927, past contributions to Trans-Jordan have been treated as grants and are not recoverable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have the terms of this treaty?

Mr. AMERY: I hope it will be available in a few days.

RUBBER EXPORT RESTRICTION SCHEME.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the past 12 months, there has been any exchange of views with the Government of the United States of America in regard to the removal of restrictions on rubber exports from certain British Colonies in the East?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer is in the negative.

Colonel HOWARD BURY: Has the recent action of the Government been merely another gesture to America at the expense of the British taxpayer?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there any truth in the rumour that this was a quid pro quo for the Americans reducing their Navy Estimates—that the rubber holders should be sacrificed?

Sir F. NELSON: In view of the very large pecuniary advantage accruing to certain American interests as a result of the heavy slump in rubber, will the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of giving the widest publicity to the denial he has just given?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I imagine that it will get the publicity generally given to questions and answers here.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the real reason that, owing to the high prices, the Americans are reusing their old rubber and not buying enough from us?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

WARRANT OFFICERS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 90.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what basis the number of officers of and from warrant rank in each of the engineering, ordnance and electrical branch of the service is calculated; and how are the numbers of chief artificers of the engine-room, ordnance, and electrical branches determined?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The number of warrant officers and officers promoted therefrom in the branches named is, as stated in the reply given on the 30th May, 1927 (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 25–26) governed by the number of appointments for which officers of these branches are required. The promotion of chief artificers is governed by the requirements of the complements of His Majesty's ships and establishments.

DOCKYARD GENERATING STATIONS (SUPERVISORS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 91.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as
an act of grace and not as a precedent, he will reconsider the case of certain station engineers in the Admiralty generating stations with regard to establishment and allow them to count their time in full for pension purposes before the actual date of their establishment, seeing that there is a case of an officer who has held a supervisory post for 17 years, 10 of which were in the capacity of an acting officer, unestablished, whilst others of less service in co-ordinate posts have been established?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: For the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member on the 18th November last (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1291–1292), I regret that it is not possible to make any exception to the general service rule in regard to establishment in favour of the officers to whom the hon. Member refers.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has not the hon. and gallant Gentleman power to make an exception in a particularly hard case of this kind?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not. think the case is particularly hard.

DOCKYARD PROMOTION (EXAMINATIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 92.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the forthcoming examinations for promotion in the dockyards, he will consider the nominations of men who have reached the age of 45 since the date of the last examination for promotion, seeing that they have had to wait so many years for the examination?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The suggestion made by the hon. Member was met at the last examinations held five years ago, when an extension of the normal age limit by seven years was allowed. The Admiralty are not prepared to repeat this concession on the next occasion.

FISH QUAY, GRIMSBY (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. DENNISON: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether inspectors of factories visit the fish quay at Grimsby for the purpose of examining the conditions and the terms of contracts of service under which persons are employed thereon; whether he is aware that stoppages for commodities, including drinking water,
supplied by employers and charged for at their own prices, are made from earnings of fishermen and others; whether this system is sanctioned by the inspectors as complying with the provisions of the Truck Acts; and, if not, whether he will have inquiry made with a view to instituting proceedings?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Vivian Henderson): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The factory inspectors are responsible for the enforcement of the Truck Acts in the case only of persons employed in factories and workshops; they have no jurisdiction in this respect in the case of fishermen and others employed elsewhere. So far as the factories and workshops at the Grimsby Docks are concerned, the Chief Inspector reports that he has no evidence of any irregularities.

Mr. DENNISON: Does the hon. Member state that the Home Office have no jurisdiction whatever over this quay?

Sir V. HENDERSON: It is not under the Home Office.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions of work in connection with the fishing industry at Grimsby are under an arbitration award made 25 years ago, since which there has been no dispute whatever between employers and employed, and that the people of Grimsby would resent the interference of any outsider who knows nothing whatever about the fishing industry?

Miss LAWRENCE: Is it not the fact that in previous cases a fish quay has been held to be a place of work within the meaning of the Act, and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman look up the precedents?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I shall be glad to receive any information on the subject from the hon. Member.

QUESTIONS (MINISTER'S REPLIES).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: On a point of Order. May I know, Mr. Speaker, if it was a right and proper comment made by the Prime Minister during Question Time that, while he was willing to answer points raised by the right hon. Member
the Leader of the Opposition, he was not disposed to answer questions raised by Back Benchers? Is there any distinction between Front Benchers and Back Benchers?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no distinction in my eyes. I think the hon. Member always gets a fair share.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Is the Prime Minister moving the suspension, of the Eleven O'clock Rule to-night in order to give all parties a chance of supporting the Protection of Lapwings Bill—that, and that alone—or does he propose to take contentious business?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. I do not think the business I propose to take is contentious. It is customary to move the suspension of the Eleven O'clock Rule on the first night of the Army discussions in order to make sure of getting the Committee stage of the Votes. We do hope to get the Second Reading of the Lapwings Bill, if it be non-contentious, and we hope to get the Report of the Super-annuation (Diplomatic Service) [Money] Resolution.

Mr. MacDONALD: Is it necessary to get the Report stage of the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) [Money] Resolution? Otherwise, I think we might let the Eleven O'clock Rule go.

The PRIME MINISTER: We must get the Army Votes, and there are always many hon. Members who wish to speak on them, but it is not my desire to keep the House up unduly late to-night.

Mr. MacDONALD: The point is not the Army Votes, but the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) [Money] Resolution.

The PRIME MINISTER: I was going to say that we hoped to get that, but I do not propose to keep the House unduly late to get it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope we will be in order in debating this Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) [Money] Resolution, because, if I am present, I intend to do so.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Air Estimates and consider Votes A, 1, 4, 2, and 3 in Committee.
Tuesday, Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill; further progress with the British Guiana Bill, and the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Bill; and other Orders on the Paper.
Thursday, it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates and consider in Committee Votes A, 1, 10, and 2; Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1927, and Civil Excess Vote, 1926–27.

On any day, if time permit, other Orders will be taken.

The Air Estimates, I believe, were in the Vote Office this morning. The other Service Estimates to be taken next week will be available to Members at the week-end.

Mr. MacDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when he is to make his announcement about the Franchise Bill; and, secondly, when a

day is to be given for the Debate arising out of the Treasury Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. To take the latter question first, I hope to fix the first portion of Monday week, the 19th instant. In regard to the Franchise Bill, it will be presented on Monday next. I cannot yet give the date of the Second Reading, but my undertaking holds, that the Second Reading will be taken before we rise for the Easter Recess.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to lay the Minutes of Evidence before the House before the Debate on the Treasury Report takes place?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What is the use of having a Debate then, if we do not know what it is about?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order Sittings of the House."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 111.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Charterls, Brigadier-Central J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Goff, Sir Park


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grace, John


Allen,J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Clarry, Reginald George
Grant, Sir J. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grotrlan, H. Brent


Apsley, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Douglas H.


Balniel, Lord
Couper, J. B.
Hamilton, Sir George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hammersley, S. S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davies, MaJ-Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bethel, A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt, R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Drewe, C.
Henderson, Sir Vlvian (Bootle)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hills, Major John Waller


Brass, Captain W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hilton, Cecil


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ellis, R. G.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Briggs, J. Harold
England, Colonel A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Briscoe, Richard George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Holt, Captain H. P.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Burman, J. B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Campbell, E. T.
Forrest, W.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fraser, Captain lan
Huntingfield, Lord


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gadle, Lieut-Col. Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. H. (Ladywood)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Iveagh, Countess of


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Storry-Deans, R.


Jephcott, A. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Penny, Frederick George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Templeton, W. P.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thom, Lt.Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lamb, J. Q.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Preston, William
Tinne, J. A.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon- Sir Philip
Price, Major C. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Raine, Sir Walter
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Ramsden, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Looker, Herbert William
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waddington, R.


Lougher, Lewis
Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rhys Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lumley, L. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carilsle)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ropner, Major L.
Wells, S. R.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


MacIntyre, Ian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Malone, Major P. B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Margesson, Capt. D.
Savery, S. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)


Meller, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wragg, Herbert


Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Fxeter)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Mr. F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jankins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Junes, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, Joseph


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Taylor, R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Wellhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wiggins, William Martin


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hardle, George D.
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H.



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr Hayes and Mr.Whiteley.


Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

STABILISATION OF EASTER BILL (changed to "EASTER BILL")

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 15th June, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

STANDING COMMITTEES.

Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—[Mr. William Nicholson.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.

That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution:
That it is expedient that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport) Bill, and the Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. James Hudson; and had appointed in substitution; Captain Fanshawe, Colonel McDonnell, and Mr. Stewart.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1928.

SIR L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS' STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

4.0 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
I have followed the course that I took last year, and I have circulated with the Estimates a very full Memorandum in which I have reviewed the events of the Army year. I hope, therefore, that I can shorten my speech to-day. This year, I am asking for a vote on Vote A for 153,500 men. This is 13,000 less than last year, when the Vote was swollen by the numbers of men required to cover the mixed Brigade which was sent from India to China, and by the men called up from Section A of the Reserve to join British Units going to China. These factors alone account for 9,000. Among the other decreases, there is a reduction of about 1,500 Colonial and Indian troops, due to the transfer of Aden from the War Office to the Votes of the Air Ministry, to reductions in the garrisons at Bermuda and Sierra Leone, and to economies in the administrative services, principally in the Royal Army Service Corps and the Royal Army Medical Corps.
The total money I am asking the House to vote is £41,050,000 compared with £41,565,000 last year. This shows a net decrease of £515,000, just over half a million, but the true saving to the British Exchequer is much more. It is £1,000,000. This is due to two causes; we are receiving from the Exchequer as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the expense of the troops of the Rhine, £500,000 less than last year. The bulk of this will accrue to the general credit of the Exchequer, but in order to get my reduced total, I have had to reduce expenditure by this half million, as well as saving the £500,000 of actual reduction in the Estimates. In the second place, there is a gain to the Exchequer in connection with the Middle East. Army charges there last year fell
on the Colonial Office Vote. This year the charge, which amounts to £200,000, falls on the Army Vote, and thin charge also has been brought within my reduced total. In addition to these sums, I have had to make substantially larger provision for the rise in the Non-Effective Votes, the growth in the Army Reserve, and increased expenditure at Singapore.
I do not propose to go through each Vote separately, but I will explain how the savings have been arrived at. Broadly speaking, there are three causes for the savings. First, there is the reduction in numbers. This is partly due to the reduction in establishments; we have been steadily pursuing our policy of economy, and we have found means of reducing the number of men we required, particularly in the administrative services, without, I hope, impairing our efficiency. But recruiting has also, I regret to say, failed to come up to requirements, and as there is a heavy run-off of men whose time is now expiring, and we expect to start the new year 2,500 men under establishment, we cannot hope to prevent the widening of the gap between strength and establishment. To this extent 1928 will be subnormal, and increased provision under this head may be anticipated in 1929. The Territorial Army similarly had a strength, on 1st January last, 7,000 below that of the year before, and though we do not expect this falling-off to continue throughout the year, it is only necessary to make provision for a maximum of some 2,500 less than last year. The total reductions in respect of numbers amount to some £416,000.
Under the second cause, I group the fall in prices of various supplies, the lower cost of living, which is associated with the same cause, the reduction made in the soldiers' rate of pay in 1925, which is having a cumulative effect, and the fact that there is one pay day less in the financial year. The second group of these causes contributes nearly £800,000 towards the reduction in expenditure. The third saving is obtained by a ruthless reduction in the Vote for New Works and Lands. There has been a reduction here of nearly £250,000. This is such a saving that I am afraid I cannot hold out hopes of being able to repeat it in another year.
In perusing the Estimates, hon. Members will find that in almost every case the totals of the individual Votes differ from those of last year. Some of the heavy increases and decreases in the individual Votes are only apparent, as a number of these are due to the transfer of provison from one Vote to another consequent on the transfer of certain duties between the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of Ordnance. The re-allocation of duties between these two members of the Army Council has introduced a number of counterbalancing charges into certain of the Votes. I can, however, summarise Votes in one sentence; they appear to show only a reduction of just over £500,000, but in fact the taxpayer is relieved by over £1,000,000. The reduction in expenditure, therefore, amounts to over £1,000,000, and this follows upon a continuous reduction year by year ever since 1921. I think hon. Members may feel disposed to join me in thanking the military members of the Army Council, and, indeed, the Army itself, for the assistance they have given in obtaining this result.
For some years past I have been gradually introducing changes into the Army which have been necessitated by the advance in the science of mechanical traction. On the introduction of the Army Estimates last year, and also in 1926, I described the trials and experiments with track, semi-track and wheel-cum-track machines, and compared the uses and performances of these vehicles with the six-wheeler now extensively adopted. I told the House of the partial reorganisation of the Cavalry, the Artillery and the Infantry, which have been initiated to utilise mechanical vehicles, but I have never been in a position to do more than explain the tentative and experimental work that had been commenced. I think, however, the time has now come when, with the experience we have gained, I can state more fully the aims of the Army Council in the reorganisation now in progress, and state the policy I am pursuing.
The additional mobility and carrying power of mechanical vehicles along with the striking force of tanks, are creating a revolution, not in the principles of warfare but in the application of those
principles, just as the advent of the motor car has transformed the conduct of business life and even the social life of the nation. Last year we carried out at Tidworth a most interesting series of experiments with the mechanical force, consisting of a tank battalion, an armoured car company, mechanised artillery, and the Somerset Light Infantry mounted in six-wheel lorries. The immediate object of the experiment was to test the possibilities of an armoured mechanised force designed for action as a self-contained formation, and to find the best composition of the force and to evolve tactics for its use. Its first problem was to settle what auxiliary units must be associated with a tank battalion, which was treated as the main assaulting force, in order to enable the commander of the force to strike his enemy with the maximum of speed and effect. The General Officer Commanding, in reporting upon the work of the force, said that the results had exceeded his expectations. He said that they had learned more by the actual experiment than they have learned by years of speculation.
Psychologically, the effect on training has been very marked. The mere fact that something new is actually being done has put new life into all units; even the experience of being attacked by the mechanised force was exhilarating and stimulating. It was a pledge of progress. Of course, it is too early yet to say anything positive about the outcome of the experiments. There is room for much speculation. It may be that, ultimately, very few soldiers will actually march on their feet great distances to battle; they may be carried by air or in motor vehicles, much as their brothers in civil life are progressively ceasing to walk, and are using other and more speedy methods of progression. It may be that the divisional organisation with its proportions of Cavalry, Artillery and Infantry, will have to be changed, and that other and smaller groups of men in various kinds of mechanical vehicles, with tanks, will be found to be the best units upon which to build a larger force. Although these speculations are permissible, they relate to the future rather than to the present, and, meanwhile, we have to maintain the forces we know to be valuable until by experiment, by trial or error, we are satisfied that something better can be substituted. So we are
asking for money to continue the experimental mechanised force at Tidworth, and throughout the year further experience will be sought in the nature of the machines, in the organisation of mechanised units and in the methods of their employment.
Of course, if I were a free man—I mean, if it were not necessary to keep expenditure within very narrow limits—I would create the new formations before I reduced or converted the existing ones, but I am not free to follow that course; I have to make continuous reductions in existing expenditure, in order to find money for experiments and research and even for equipping some units with new and expensive vehicles and armaments. I am more handicapped than a business man, because I have no capital account. I cannot expend capital and replace it over a number of years. I have to make the purchases each year out of a reduced yearly income, and consequently I have no room for adventures. I have to bring about savings which mean reductions in present units before I can find the
money for the new equipments. The policy we are pursuing is gradually to convert existing formations which were organised without reference to mechanical vehicles into formations based upon the increased mobility and fire-power given by the use of the internal - combustion engine, whether it be used in aeroplanes, or in land armaments or transport.
We are gradually applying this policy to all the arms of the Service First, I will state the policy with regard to the Cavalry. I tried last year to show that a strengthened and a modernised Cavalry is still necessary, and I see that many writers in the Press proclaim that the day of the Cavalry is past, and that they denounce me as weak and wasteful because I do not immediately disband all Cavalry regiments. They have, no doubt, been watching some of our cross country mechanised vehicles and, without any just appreciation of the uses of Cavalry, they have let their enthusiasm for the machines run away with their judgment. I would remind the House why Cavalry have been and still are required. Before the Great War it was generally accepted that the duties of Cavalry comprised the services of obtaining information and providing security for the Army. In other words, whilst
one body known as the independent Cavalry of the Army made it their duty to seek out the enemy and maintain touch with him until the Commander-in-Chief was able to form and execute his plans for bringing the enemy to battle, the protective Cavalry of the Army afforded the necessary protection against a surprise attack during the approach of the Army to the battlefield. When the enemy was forced to retire the Cavalry, by use of the sword, endeavoured to turn the enemy's retreat into a rout. In the contrary event, the Cavalry, by use of their mobility and fire-power, were expected to cover the withdrawal of their own side. In the prolonged siege warfare on the Western Front in the Great War the part played by our Cavalry in the earlier and later stages of the conflict was completely overshadowed by the larger and more important happenings in 1915, 1916, and 1917, whilst the experiences of the Palestine campaign show that in certain countries and against certain types of forces Cavalry is still an effective and necessary force.
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the advent of the aeroplane and the tank, coupled with the enormously increased power of rapid-firing weapons of all natures, have had a serious influence on the ability of the cavalry to perform nowadays the tasks which were expected of them prior to 1914. War has changed and will continue to change, but it is always necessary to find your enemy and to take precautions against a surprise attack. Reconnaissance, therefore, is necessary. Long-distance reconnaissance can, weather permitting, be done by aeroplanes, and at medium distances aeroplanes are of great advantage, but close reconnaissance, especially in a country affording some cover, must still be done by troops capable of speedy and silent movement over difficult ground, and in the face of opposition. Let me emphasise the full significance of the word "capable." The horse and man to-day are no more bullet proof than they were formerly, while the delaying power of even the smallest body of troops acting on the defensive, if equipped with machine guns on the modern scale, has increased to a degree upon which I need not dilate. The execution of any reconnaissance connotes the possession of
power to penetrate a hostile defensive screen. In the face of opposition of this description, which we are certain to meet in any future war, it will be impossible to achieve this penetration by forces unaccompanied by armoured vehicles of some description.
Our problem, therefore, in considering the future use of cavalry, is to produce a force which will still be capable of carrying out its old accepted role of gaining information and affording security in the face of modern weapons, to such extent as these requirements cannot be met by the use of aircraft. It should not be forgotten, also, that the British cavalry does not know where it may be called upon to operate. The cavalry of a purely European Power knows its terrain and it can be equipped and trained accordingly. The British cavalry must be ready to play its part, whether in Europe or elsewhere, under widely different conditions. I am satisfied that horses cannot be abolished altogether, for as yet we have no machines which can take the place of the horse for all purposes and in all countries. We have machines which, by bearing some part of the load hitherto carried by cavalry, can assist the cavalry, rendering it still more mobile and increasing its fire-power, and we have armoured cars which can assist the cavalry to penetrate a hostile defensive screen. We believe that the problem is best solved for the present by the reorganisation which I will outline.
As hon. Members know, the cavalry has been largely reduced in recent years. The Household Cavalry has been reduced to two regiments, slightly strengthened in numbers, and the cavalry of the line has been reduced from 28 regiments to 20 regiments. There are five regiments in India and three regiments in Egypt, one on the Rhine, and 11 regiments at home. The Army Council do not consider that we have any surplus of mounted units, and it is not therefore intended to disband any unit. During the past year we have completed the reorganisation, on a two-sabre squadron basis, of the 15 regiments at home, on the Rhine and in Egypt. As I explained last year, the organisation of a line cavalry regiment has been altered to comprise two sabre squadrons and a
machine-gun squadron, which we are mechanising, instead of three sabre squadrons. The mechanised squadron consists for the present of six-wheeler lorries, carrying eight machine guns in peace and 16 machine guns in war. Six wheelers will also carry the first line transport. But we hope to improve on the lorries; we are trying to find lightly-armoured vehicles, but some time will probably elapse before we are successful. Part of the load hitherto carried by the horse has been transferred to the lorries, and the men now ride two stone lighter.
I have not been able to include in this year's Estimates all the money required for the equipment, but I hope that it may be completed in the course of a few years; meanwhile, so far as the 11 regiments at home are concerned, there will be enough lorries provided for training purposes. The reorganisation will economise in men and it will increase the range of action of the cavalry by reducing the weight they carry, and by improving the first line transport, and the additional machine guns will add immensely to their fire power. I have already mentioned the necessity for including armoured vehicles in our cavalry formation, in order that they may be able to penetrate the enemy's defensive screen. We want to strengthen the cavalry by adding one armoured car regiment per brigade, and we propose that two cavalry regiments shall exchange their horses for armoured cars. When this is done, a cavalry division will consist of two cavalry brigades and two regiments of armoured cars with their artillery. I had better say at once that the regiments which will be converted into armoured-car regiments will retain intact their titles, their privileges, their precedence, and their identity as regiments of the Corps of Cavalry of the Line, and I am confident that we can rely on the regiments concerned to maintain their high tradition of efficiency and esprit de corps, in the new conditions which will confront them. We believe that by carrying out this policy, we shall have made the best use of modern machines to enable the cavalry to fulfil a role for which, at least in some countries, they are still indispensable.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON. BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which are the two regiments?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am going to ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press me upon that point to-day. I do not want to announce the names of the regiments until the regiments themselves have been notified. As machines improve we can extend the process of substituting mechanical mounts for horses, and if it should be that eventually some genius produces the perfect substitute for a horse, our mounted troops will no doubt then willingly accept the substitute. I may say that that substitute is not yet in sight. With the artillery the difficulties are not so great. Heavy and medium artillery is being mechanised entirely; two brigades of the Army Field Artillery are mechanised; some batteries are tractor drawn, and one battery is mounted in self-propelled vehicles. The rest of the field artillery is still horse drawn. We have hitherto been obliged to keep more batteries of horse-drawn field artillery than we wished, because India required horse-drawn artillery and was not willing to take mechanised units, and it was necessary, therefore, not merely to provide horse-drawn units for service in India, but also to keep the corresponding units at home to furnish drafts and reliefs for those in India. We have taken money in the Estimates for mechanising one additional field brigade for further experiments. I intend to pursue the policy of converting horse-drawn into mechanised units as soon as money can be made available The Royal Horse Artillery and the Light Artillery, which used to be called the Pack Artillery, will remain for the present with horses and mules.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No asses?

5.0 p.m.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I have said in the Memorandum, the battalions of foot-guards and of the infantry of the line at home and in the Colonies are being reorganised into a headquarter wing and three rifle companies and a machine gun company of 16 machine guns on the Colonial establishment, and 12 machine guns on the home establishment. Four anti-tank guns will be added as soon as a satisfactory gun can be devised. The ancillary arms of the Service have naturally to conform to the greater speed of the principal formations, and consequently motor transport has to be provided for
them. Considerable progress has been made in the mechanisation of the engineer and signal units.
I believe the Army is eager to progress, but I am bound to be cautious; it is just as easy to be carried away by the apparent case with which mechanised vehicles, on parade, without opposition, carry out spectacular manœuvres, as it is to be disheartened and underrate the possibilities of an armoured mechanical force, if we dwell too much on the limitations of the machines now provided. We have added to our knowledge year by year; we have learnt enough to adopt a definite policy, and we shall learn more by this year's exercises at Tidworth. I have no doubt that the policy which we are pursuing is the right one. We have determined at the earliest possible moment to utilise to the full the inventions which have been proved useful in civil life, but we have to adapt them to military uses, and we have to adapt the Army, with its ancient traditions and its historic regiments, with their invaluable esprit de corps, to the new conditions.
I will now turn to the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army, as hon. Members are aware, is now organised and trained. so far as conditions permit, on the same lines as the Regular Army. It is of great importance, therefore, that the contact between the Territorial and the Regular armies should be as close and continuous as circumstances allow, and increasing efforts are made to foster personal relations. For instance, during annual training Staff College students have been attached to Territorial formations, to their mutual benefit. The students got an opportunity of practical handling of troops, and the Territorial personnel are brought into contact with the latest developments of military science. Regular battalions, also, are encouraged to take a practical interest in their Territorial battalions and to send a proportion of their officers and non-commissioned officers to camp with them. The same arrangement is encouraged, too, in the case of units other than infantry, with equally good results. A large proportion of Territorial brigades last year also made use of Regular officers for the instruction of machine gunners and signallers. I think these forms of assistance from the Regular Army are much appreciated by
the Territorial Army, and encourage a feeling that they are not being treated as amateurs. At any rate, it is a significant fact that the number of officers in the Territorial Army on the 1st January was higher than at any date since the reconstitution of the Territorial Army in 1921. In the combatant branches there is a shortage of only 805 on an establishment of 6,630. This shows, I think, that the Territorial officer to-day feels he is getting a military training that is really interesting and worth commending to his friends.
As regards other ranks the position is not so satisfactory. The abolition last year of the training bounty and the substitution of a proficiency grant gave a serious set-back to recruiting in the spring, and from March to July of last year there was a heavy fall in the intake of recruits, compared with the corresponding months of 1925 (the figures for 1926 being abnormal owing to the General Strike). Since then there has been a gradual improvement which will, I hope, be maintained, as this year I have no disturbing announcement to make with regard to the Territorial Army. There is a small reduction due to the abolition of some veterinary units which can be improvised on mobilisation; and the process of mechanisation in Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers and Royal Signals units means some reduction of establishments also. The administrative grants to associations are being reduced by about £30,000, equal to 2½ percent., and I should like to take this opportunity of saying how warmly I appreciate the spirit in which County Associations generally have accepted this necessarily unwelcome "cut." Some saving had to be found, and they have not tried to shift the burden from their own shoulders.
Hon. Members will have observed that these Estimates do not contain any provision for the additional cost of the troops in China who are in excess of the number normally stationed there. We are following the practice of previous years in presenting Supplementary Estimates so that the House may be aware of the extra cost involved in the despatch of additional troops to that country. I should not, however, like to let this opportunity pass without a tribute to the good work and good behaviour of the
troops sent at short notice to China under conditions of service where were exceptional. I have already told the House of the admirable manner in which the men of Section A of the Army Reserve responded to the sudden call on their services. The last of these returned home a few weeks ago, and I am sure that Members of the House and all the wider audience to whom my words may come, will be ready to do what they can to help to employment or re-employment these men who have rendered so useful a service to their country in time of emergency.
I propose now to say a few words about my visit to India this winter. Let me repeat that the units of the British Army in India are under the command of the Commander-in-Chief in India, Field Marshal Sir William Birdwood, and they are administered by the Government of India, and that consequently. I had no jurisdiction and no official position in relation to the troops in India. I only repeat this to avoid anything I may say being considered an encroachment upon the province of the Government of India. I spent over a week at Quetta, Rasmak and Peshawar, and I visited most of the posts on the Indian frontier. I stayed with the General Officers Commanding and I saw most of the British units and many of those belonging to the Indian Army. I am most grateful to them for their kindness and for the useful information they gave me. It does one good to visit the real outposts where living is hard, where no one pretends there is any luxury or much comfort, and where officers and men alike are always on the alert, ready and waiting for whatever may chance to be their lot. I also visited a number of other stations, where I saw British and Indian units, some belonging to the Field Force, and others part of the internal security troops. At Delhi, with General Charles who accompanied me, I had some satisfactory conferences with the Commander-in-Chief and his staff.
The first difficulty we had to tackle arose from the reorganisation of our cavalry at home. The five regiments in India are still on the old three sabre squadron basis. I was anxious that the reorganisation of the British cavalry should proceed in all the regiments, and that all should have two sabre squadrons
and a machine gun squadron to be mechanised as soon as possible. If the regiments in India had remained on the old formation, there would have been difficulties about reliefs and drafts, and moreover the training would have been different. I am glad to say that the Commander-in-Chief, after some discussion, readily agreed that the British cavalry regiments in India should be reorganised on the same basis as those in England, although the machine gun squadrons of those regiments will not be mechanised at present.
We had a similar difficulty with the field artillery. India was not willing to receive a mechanised brigade; as we continue our policy of mechanisation of the field artillery, we should have been in great difficulties; indeed, we should have had to delay mechanisation and keep horse-drawn brigades for India with reliefs and drafts. The Commander-in-Chief has again met us. During the next trooping season we shall be at liberty to send either horse-drawn or mechanised artillery as we please. We had discussion also upon other aspects of mechanisation, and its effects both upon the British and Indian armies, and there were other matters of mutual interest upon which we had informal and unofficial exchanges of views. I am grateful to the Commander-in-Chief and his staff for the way in which they have met us over the cavalry and the artillery, and if that were all that had been accomplished, my journey would have been well repaid.

Mr. LAWSON: The speech to which we have just listened has been very interesting and satisfactory, inasmuch as we have been told that there is a reduction of £500,000 in this year's Estimates, and, according to the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, there is really a reduction of £1,000,000 in the expenditure. To that extent, I think, the War Office and the right hon. Gentleman are entitled to the congratulations of the House. I think it can be said that the progressive reduction in the Army Estimates for many years now, as compared with other Services, has been carried out so quickly that the War Office is entitled to the appreciation of the House. But after all is said and done, the right hon. Gentleman is asking for £41,000,000 for the purposes of defence and offence, and this aster a war
which shook civilisation to its very foundations. It is true that we may find some consolation in the fact that, in comparison with other armies of the world, our Estimates are not large and our numbers are very small. For all that, these Estimates outline possibilities of destruction that make very sad reading for those who seriously consider the future well-being of the world.
Of course, it is not for us to discuss policies this afternoon. When these decisions have been once taken it is necessary for us to see that we get proper value for the money that has to be called for, and the money that has to be spent. For the purpose of maintaining 153,000 men during the coming 12 months we are asked to spend £41,000,000. There is a very significant fact which is worthy of the attention of the House, the War Office and the country generally, and it is that 84,000 recruits offered themselves last year and out of that total about 28,000 were accepted as meeting the standard of physical fitness required for Army purposes. We have to put side by side with that the fact that the Minister has stated that the Army is below standard and that there is need for further men. There were 28,000 men accepted, or 33 out of every 100 accepted for service during the past year. I ask the House to consider what must be the real state of affairs among the great civilian population in this country if we see a continually increasing standard of physical fitness demanded in the men who year by year offer themselves for service. Last year the proportion accepted was 35 per cent. and this year it is 33 per cent.
I do not intend to labour this question. We can take all necessary steps for maintaining the efficiency of the Army; we can spend money for the maintenance of that efficiency; but it is to very little purpose if we allow social degradation and our standard of life to be lowered until we have results such as we see in these recruiting returns. Coming as I do from the homes of the masses of the people, I say definitely that, as far as I can see, there is very little hope, in view of the present standard of life, of an improvement in that direction during the next few years. It is necessary once more to emphasise that of the £41,000,000 we are spending this year there is over
£8,000,000 non-effective. That £8,000,000 goes to the payment of pensions, half-pay and the maintenance generally of those to whom we have committed ourselves. It is true that the nation through Parliament, has incurred obligations that it ought to carry out, but I say frankly that when I looked through the Estimates dealing with non-effective charges I came to the conclusion that possibly there was a need for careful review of our future commitments in respect of non-effective charges.
There is one significant fact: As expenditure goes down in the Army Estimates, the non-effective charges increase not only in comparison but in fact. It seems to me that there is need for careful review, and more than ever because of the increasing mechanisation of the Army. I have not had time to examine the figures as to the relative numbers of officers in the higher and lower grades as compared with pre-War days, but I think it would be true to say that the advance of technique and the need of more technical men will increase by comparison the number of officers and higher grade officers as compared with pre-War days. I have been wondering, in view particularly of the increasing mechanisation, just where we are likely to go in the matter of non-effective charges for pensions and that kind of thing. I should say that unless there is very strict attention given to that matter we are going to incur in the future obligations that will be a real danger to the ultimate efficiency of the Army itself. I want to make one point quite clear. Of course we have to keep our obligations to those to whom we have committed ourselves, but, taking a long view over a number of years, it seems to me of importance that there should be, either by Departmental Committee or by Select Committee, a very careful investigation of the committals of the Army and of Parliament over a number of years.
As one looks at the report on the Army itself, its moral, its standard of education and its physical standard, one finds that there is room for a good deal of congratulation. One never likes to compare the modern soldier with the old-time soldier. The old-time soldier, of course, had his virtues in spite of the vices that were very often apparent. But, really, the bearing of the soldier to-day not only
points to a standard of self-control, but is a tribute to the results of his education in addition to his training. I understand that we are asked to spend over £1,000,000 on education. We see the soldier bearing some of the signs of the money spent on his education, but I wonder just what value we are getting for the money spent in that way. I am in a somewhat dual position. As the Secretary of State knows, my right hon. Friend the late Secretary for War was compelled to leave the House, and I was called upon to deal with the Estimates in a general way when in the ordinary course of events I should have had to deal with matters in much more detail. I repeat that I wonder just what value we are getting for the money spent on the education of the soldier. There are very large numbers of schoolmasters—non-commissioned and commissioned officers. When the Financial Secretary to the War Office replies I hope he will tell us whether the schoolmasters, the supervisors and the inspectors, are people who have had training in the particular profession to which they are now called. It is necessary that we should get full value for our money in that direction and avoid the possibility of making the educational service a sort of plum for some non-commissioned officer or officer who may have had no training for that particular class of work.
Then there is the question of the training of men when they leave the Service. It has always been emphasised that if we are to recruit the right type of men they must be assured that they are not going into a blind-alley occupation. I wish to congratulate the Secretary of State and his staff at the War Office on the fact that they have moved the Catterick Camp down to Chisledon. That change was promised two years ago, and I appreciate the fact that it has been carried out. Then there are the other camps for training. I say frankly, however, that there is one thing about the new phase that I do not like, and that is the charge made to the ranker soldier when he wishes to be trained. Those charges are raised to 7s. 6d. a week. I fear that they put the training of the average ranker almost beyond the limit of his means; it is too high a proportion of his pay for that class of work. I do not know what is the proportion down at Chisledon or at Hounslow, but it appears
to me to be absolutely necessary in the best interests of the Army that every stimulus should be given to the average soldier, when he finishes his service, to train in these camps. That is one of the very useful pieces of work that I was really proud of when I had the honour of filling the office of Financial Secretary to the War Office. I trust that this new Chisledon effort, with its possibilities of training three or four times as many men as it trains now, is not going to be allowed to degenerate because of the charges that are made.
I see that on page 276 of the Estimates there are charges for Kilmainham Hospital. The normal establishment of that hospital is 137 and the present number is 46. I understand that what happened was that this hospital was, for certain reasons, still left under War Office control when the arrangement was made with the Irish Free State. There are 46 in-pensioners, and the cost for their maintenance is £279 15s. 6d. per pensioner. I believe they are being well looked after, but I would ask the Financial Secretary whether it would not be possible to care for these in-pensioners just as well by transferring them to other hospitals, and to dispose of this hospital, for which there is an annual maintenance charge of £8,000, and in the long run I believe something like £13,000. That is all that I wish to say on those matters, but there is one very important subject to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer this afternoon, namely, the question of the reorganisation of the new duties as between the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance. I cannot speak with intimate knowledge of that subject, and, indeed, I question whether there is anyone in this House who can do so unless it be, possibly, some officer who happens to have had special knowledge and training in that direction. I cannot attempt to speak with intimate knowledge of this matter, and, indeed, when the Earl of Cavan, the late Chief of the Imperial General Staff, says that he only speaks as a layman on a matter of that description, and when well tried soldiers and officers of long experience speak upon it with considerable qualification, it behoves me to speak very guardedly upon it. It is very difficult, when one reads the discussions on
this matter, to see just how far the complaints and criticisms arise from the effects of the changes upon the status of the various officers in the commands concerned.
One knows from experience, and one can sympathise with him, that the highly placed officer is very sensitive about any change in his status, but this can be said about the discussions that have gone on in connection with this reorganisation, that there has not been that narrowness, there has not been that pettiness of which one has sometimes read in connection with reorganisation in Army services in days gone by. Therefore, I am not at all affected by the cricitisms in that direction, but Sir Charles Harris, who was the Permanent Financial Secretary, has criticised it from the point of view of the possibility of an increase in cost. Then there are those who, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, have criticised this reorganisation from the point of view of its actual effect in time of war. I do not wish to enter into those arguments at all, but, having read many of the Reports of Select Committees or Commissions which have sat to consider Army matters, particularly after wars, and particularly that of the Esher Commission, and having followed as well as I could the material which the right hon. Gentleman has placed at our disposal—which is rather limited—and the arguments in the Press generally, it does seem to me that there is a possibility of the civilian, of the House of Commons, getting into the hands of the expert. You have the technical adviser, and this mechanisation seems to be tending more and more to put, not only the average civilian who takes some interest in these matters, but the War Office itself, and the right hon. Gentleman, too, very much in the hands of experts, and to make a certain phase of Army organisation very dark and difficult to understand from the point of view of just what value we are getting for our money.
It does seem to me that there is something in the point that has been made by certain newspapers, and also by Lord Haldane in another place, that it is a very important matter, not only from the point of view of the effect of these changes upon war organisation, should war unfortunately come, but also from the point of view of the cost to the
nation, that we should have some assurance, at any rate, that we are not being asked for money on a large scale for something that in the long run will, perhaps, not give full value for the money spent. I think, therefore, that there is something in the request that is being made for an inquiry. It is an agreed fact, and all Commissions after wars have proved it, that the civilian, on patient investigation, has very often had to save the soldier from himself. Therefore, I suggest personally—I do not put it forward as a proposition of my Friends at all; I make this suggestion personally—that, from the case that has been made by those who have criticised this reorganisation, without regard to the special status of the Master-General of the Ordnance or the Quartermaster-General, although, to one who has tried to understand the results of the changes, some of the things that have been done seem rather strange, but from the point of view of the nation, it seems to me that there is some need for an inquiry.
Before I close, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. He said that we have reduced the number of soldiers in China. May I ask him if he could tell us, through the Financial Secretary, or could he tell us now, how many soldiers there are at present in China, and what is the present cost of the maintenance of these men out there? We all must congratulate ourselves upon the good conduct of men who are operating in difficult circumstances, and we should like to pay tribute to that, but I should be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could answer this question, as it is of great importance for the purpose of future discussions on the Estimates. May I now, in conclusion, come back to this one point, that we vote this £41,000,000 for Army purposes because, if we need an Army at all, we feel that that Army ought to be efficient and effective for its purpose; but, if we are to fulfil that object, perhaps the gravest fact that this House has to face to-day is the statement made in the General Report on the British Army—a statement which is not only of importance to the Army, but is of great importance in regard to the civil life of this country—that only 33 out of every 100 of the youth of this country who offered them-
selves for enlistment were found to be physically fit for that purpose.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his very interesting statement—probably the most interesting statement that we have had on Army Estimates for some years. It had the great advantage of being extremely lucid and short, but there is one thing which the right hon. Gentleman skated over, and of which I think the House has not, perhaps, fully appreciated the significance, namely, the extraordinary changes which are taking place in the Army to-day, and have taken place during the past year. I venture to say that no more drastic and revolutionary changes have taken place within the Army since 1904 than have taken place during the last two years, and particularly since the 1st October of last year. We have seen the various letters which have appeared in the "Times," criticising, some of them most favourably and others unfavourably, the reorganisation which has taken place within the Headquarter Staff of the War Office in relation to the very difficult and controversial matter of the Staff of the Army in the field. It is quite realised that, with the rapid advance of mechanisation in the Army, it was right and proper and necessary that some re-grouping of duties should take place in consequence, and, therefore, the placing of all the mechanised vehicles under one head, not only for design but for control in every way, is, I think, very desirable. But when that is translated into alterations of the Staff in the field for war, you come to an entirely different pair of shoes.
I am not one of those who criticise what has been done for peace. I know that there is the disadvantage of various workshops, that is to say, the workshops of the Master-General of the Ordnance, dealing with mechanised vehicles, and the workshops of the Quartermaster-General under the Army Service Corps, dealing with the vehicles that they control. That, at home and in time of peace, is a matter purely of administration, but when you come to putting mechanised vehicles under a new Staff Officer in the field, not only as regards design but as regards control, then I think you are up against one of the fundamental errors of
which the Esher Committee pointed out the existence in our Army organisation in South Africa. You get, under the new organisation, a new Staff Officer in the field under the Commander-in-Chief, a deputy of the Master-General of the Ordnance. He now becomes a fourth principal Staff Officer in the field, and, undoubtedly, he has as much right of access to the Commander-in-Chief as the Chief of the General Staff; and in the Field Service Regulations it is laid down that the Chief of the General Staff will—not may—co-ordinate the working of the other members of the Staff, that is to say, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, and the Master-General of the Ordnance. I can quite understand that the time of the Chief of the General Staff will be more than taken up with examining the various administrative details which will be put before him, because it is laid down that he must co-ordinate, he must look into the various propositions put forward by the other members of the Staff.
Worse than that, however, you get a conflict of responsibility between the new officer, that is to say, the Master-General of the Ordnance, and the Quartermaster-General. The Quartermaster-General in war, up to the time of this change, was not only responsible for the provision of supplies and also for bringing on the various munitions of war, but he had the wagons and the various vehicles under his control to move them. Now there seems to me to be a change, in that the Master-General of the Ordnance now controls the special vehicles which are attached to the various fighting organisations—that is to say, the mechanised vehicles—and he has also to deal with the various movements of those vehicles from the base up to the front. The Army Service Corps meantime have the movement of supplies. He has his own vehicles to hand, and I can easily see the usual conflict as to what shall go up to the front line. Anyone who was on the staff during the late War knows the great conflict that went on as to whether you should send up stores or food. That was co-ordinated and run very properly under the Quartermaster-General, and I have yet to hear that that system suffered any breakdown. In the early stages of the War, there was a considerable amount of friction owing to
congestion and lack of communication from the various bases with the front.
After that got into real working order at the beginning of 1916, things went on much more smoothly, and now you are going to alter that system, which stood the stress of war, and bring in another system without any proper inquiry from those who had the working of the old system. When anyone is engaged in improving a machine or a factory, it is naturally understood that those who are working the machine or carrying on the factory are consulted before alterations are made. But here I understand the chief staff officers and those who had the principal say in the working of the staff machine in war were not consulted before this change was carried out. I quite realise, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out upstairs, that the Army Council have the responsibility in the matter, but surely some inquiry ought to have been made from those who have had experience of the working of the machine. Before such a very serious alteration in our organisation was carried out, we ought to have had some impartial inquiry, like that of the Esher Committee, which would have been able to sift the evidence without mixing up conflicting interests. If we go into a large war again, the Commander-in-Chief will undoubtedly have to make alterations in the present system.
I notice in the instructions issued, it is said that an administrative officer may be appointed to ease the Commander-in-Chief of the burden by co-ordinating the other members of his staff. There will then remain the Chief of the General Staff and the chief administrative officer. If this is going to be the plan for war, surely it ought to be carried out now, because it is so difficult when you go to war to realise whether it is going to be a small or a big war, and the great advantage of running one type of organisation is that people get accustomed to it, as they had done before the last War. The difficulties of administration on the field only come up under great stress, and during the stress of war you cannot change. It is during the extra strain put on administration that it breaks down. Possibly there is a good deal to be said for this change, but I do not see why such a fundamental change should
be carried out against the advice of very distinguished officers without proper investigation.
As regards the War Office side of the change, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates the Master-General of the Ordnance always being drawn from the same arm of the service, the Royal Artillery, because for the last 100 years it has always been an artillery officer who has been Master-General of the Ordnance. The interchangeability of staff officers was laid down not very long ago as absolutely fundamental, so that the staff officer should learn the difficulties of each branch of the staff. Then I should like to ask how far are the Master-General of the Ordnance and the Major-General of Artillery to be the same person. I understand the organisation has this economy, that the two will be thrown into one. You will thus get the extraordinary state of affairs that the Master-General of the Ordnance, who is responsible for the provision of the sinews of war, will be the same man who inspects and reports on those sinews of war to the Commander-in-Chief. I cannot imagine a worse form of inspection than a man inspecting his own deeds and his own production. It is most important that if there is to be that synchronisation of the Major-General of Artillery and the Master-General of Ordnance, some other method should be adopted of inspection so as to provide the guarantee of a sufficiency of material.
Under the new organisation, I take it, the store holding, that is the heavy stores, will be in the hands of the Master-General of Ordnance in the field. If so, it seems to me a great deal of friction will be created as to when and how those stores are to be moved and where they are to be housed. During the War, at Calais and Boulogne, we had the greatest difficulty in knowing which were the right stores to house in the most get-at-able position and which stores it was more important to send up, because there was never sufficient transport to send up everything. I should like to be reassured as to how far this will be under the control of one man, and not in the hands of all. I think Parliament had a right to be consulted before these very radical
changes were carried out, and certainly ought to have had the advice of a Committee. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the Cavalry Division. I thought that was a move in the right direction. The combination of the fast-moving vehicles, the mechanisation of part of the force and keeping horses for the other, is perfectly right, and it will be with great interest that we shall hear his Report next year as to how far we have advanced and how the lessons have been learnt.
I should like to ask how far the change in the making up of the Division affects drafts abroad—I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman was able to persuade the heads of the Indian Army to come into line with us in our new organisation—and how far will the linked regiments of India he able to give the necessary drafts. The more we keep in line with India, the better it will be for the Service as a whole. We suffered from that in the War. The Indian units came over with arms and ammunition of a different type and we had no spare parts for them. It is most important that we should keep every part of our Army in India or elsewhere on the same basis and with the same arms. I was glad to hear there is such a big number of our regular officers going to the Territorial Force. That is one of the points we laid down in 1919, when we had a Committee to consider how we could more closely connect the Territorial Army with the Regular Army. The more we can keep touch between them, the better it will be for both.
With regard to China, I am glad to see the garrison is being reduced. Service in the contained area of Shanghai is extremely irksome. From the reports I get from friends out there, I learn that the troops are under a tremendous moral strain. They are cooped up and have very few facilities for amusement outside the ordinary football and things close round their cantonments. The surroundings of the various places where they have to sleep are full of the usual Chinese smells. Altogether it is a demoralising area, and I trust, if we are going to keep any Force there at all, we shall turn the men over as frequently as possible. After all, you have a first-class station at Hong Bong, and there is no reason why we should not make a
quick turnover, certainly not allowing any units to remain longer than a year. I hope the reports are thoroughly sound from the point of view of health. I know, the right hon. Gentleman appreciated that very great difficulty before they went out. We have to be very careful to see that they have adequate hospital equipment.
I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to touch on Iraq. No doubt we are in a position of strain there at present. How far have we got the troops it will be necessary to send there ready, and are we going to draw on India or on home for that?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better ask that question of the Air Minister on Monday.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Air Marshal Ellington will be there, and you could not have a more competent Commander in the field. All the same, undoubtedly the Air Minister will have to call upon the War Minister to provide the men to hold the post. It is all very well for the Air Force to say that they can handle the position, but they cannot rest, unfortunately. When you get people holding positions or protecting places like Basra, undoubtedly they will have to come to the War Minister. I only suggest to him that he will relieve our minds by saying that he knows what is required and also what he can do in the matter. It is a very serious thing, as we all know, to be thrown into warfare in that climate, especially up and down the Gulf there. It will be a very difficult operation, and I hope that things will mend and that we shall not be required to send British soldiers to that part.
There are two questions I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to answer when he replies. One is a question which affects my country. Round about Christmas and the New Year festivities, a battalion at Aldershot was suddenly reported as having become extremely riotous, and their conduct was reported in certain sections of the Press as very deplorable. I understand that their honour as a well-disciplined regiment was entirely vindicated when the matter was investigated by a committee of inquiry, and I hope that a short statement will be made by the Financial Secretary to
show that the War Office recognise this, because it is felt, not only in the Highlands where this regiment is recruited, but amongst every one who is connected with the regiment, that some injustice has been done by the publicity which has been given to their supposed misdoings, while no publicity was given to their exoneration and to their conduct, which was proved to be grossly exaggerated. I hope that for the regiment's sake, and for the sake of Scottish regiments, some remarks will be made by the Financial Secretary.
Last of all, may I ask him to reassure officers that it is not necessary for them to provide themselves with full dress? I do not want to single out units, but I know about what I am talking. Officers over and over again have been told, "Well, I know it is not recognised by the Regulations, but you have to get it." The result is, either they actually purchase full dress, or they hire it, which is worse. I think that some statement ought to be made to show those officers that the Regulations and rules laid down by the War Office are intended to be carried out, otherwise it is not necessary to have these rules and Regulations. There is a great deal of, what I might call, undue pressure put upon young officers and others to get what is not authorised. Authorise it, and let them have it by authority, but do not say, "Oh, no, do not get it" and then have this undue pressure. I know my hon. Friend will do what he can in the matter. I can only say that I hope the new organisations which have been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman will prosper, and that next year we shall have interesting reports as to their further development.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) admitted that he felt some apprehension as to the new changes in the Army, and I must say that when I first looked at the Estimates the thought that struck me was, "Are the lessons of the Great War applicable, and, if so, how far are they applicable to the present situation? "Strategically—yes; tactically—no, not altogether. I will not pretend to say anything about the strategical point of view except to emphasise the very great
importance of a combination of the General Staff and the Navy and Air Staffs. Anyone who happened to see the film "Through German Eyes" the other day—and a good many hon. Members went there—could see on the map what "strategy" means, and the great necessity for it. It meant much to the German Empire. It means much more to a scattered Empire like ours. I am very glad that the Secretary for War and the Minister for Air have both been out to those parts where, possibly, a combination of our three defence forces is necessary, and where high political considerations also come into the picture. But I think that when we come to the tactical point of view we are entitled, and it is very necessary, to ask how far the present organisation, or reorganisation, is safe and is meeting the case.
I am one of those who believe still, though the lessons of the War taught us to make use of mechanical movements, that, in an Empire like ours where we have very different conditions from those which existed on the Western Front, changes in the way of mechanical vehicles and so forth must be made gradually. My fear is, that the infantry and the cavalry and the old arms are being changed too quickly to new ideas which were not really the true lessons of the War. I think it must be admitted that in countries like India, Egypt, and Iraq—and, after all, these are the places we have to watch at the present moment, because, owing to our enemies and other combinations, a, force may be required to defend our interests there more than at home—the forces are bound to be framed on a different model from anything on the Western Front. They are bound to be more mobile. They cannot have the same arms to assist them, they cannot have gas, for instance, or any arms which cannot move in those countries. You are bound to come back more to the position which obtained 30 years ago of the man and his weapon. Incidentally, having come to the weapon—and I suppose I am the only Lancer in this House—I think that proper consideration has not been given to what has been done by the War Office in doing away with the lance. I know that many of my hon. Friends here who are Hussars may not agree with all that I say, but the lance has rightly
been called the "queen of weapons," and it has proved itself the queen of weapons both in war and in sport.
I received the other day from an old sergeant-major of mine a description of a little episode in most unfavourable circumstances at the beginning of the Great War. The Secretary for War stated, as the role of cavalry in retreat, that "they covered the retreat with their sabres." I do not think that if he had been trained under the late Field-Marshal he would have obtained the whole of the marks in an examination for the description he gave. But I will give the case of a squadron of Lancers covering the retreat, about which my old sergeant-major wrote to me the other day:
I am sure that anyone who witnessed the charge of "C" squadron on the 28th August, 1914, would never think of taking away the lance. Had our men been armed with the sword instead of the lance, the Germans being hidden in corn-sheaves, I do not think a dozen would have been killed. I believe I am right in saying 68 were killed by the squadron… Again, on the Marne, we had a very successful show against their infantry in which the lance came out on top.
It is perfectly obvious that people trained to ride horses at full gallop, whether they are after wild animals or wild men, find a lance a far better killing weapon than the sword. I will relate another episode, which is perfectly true. The cavalry have very often been used to clear the streets during rioting, and in Ireland at one time as a squadron of swordsmen went down a street, the Irish threw glass bottles from a wall, and the squadron had to go away. They sent out a squadron of my regiment and the men simply took their lances, which were longer than the swords, and poked the rioters under their feet, and backwards they fell. It is a great blow to all lancers to have to give up their lances. I am glad to see that, at least, the Indian Army are retaining the lance, and that is another reason that we ought to retain it. It, is a far more useful weapon than the sword.
The other matter to which I want to draw attention is the organisation of a British Cavalry Regiment. You have two sabre squadrons, one machine-gun squadron and a Headquarter wing, and I venture to think that any commanding officer in charge of a regiment has now
an impossible task in manœuvring his regiment either in the field or in wartime. First of all, if you can have two cavalry squadrons, the same staff and the same amount of officers are taught cavalry work quite distinct from other manœeuvres. You have at the present moment laid down in the organisation so many farriers in, the cavalry regiment, though they only have half the number of horses to shoe, and you have no mechanics to do the cars or the mechanical part of it. I want to know whether the farriers are also trained mechanics, and, if so, how can they possibly be trained to shoe horses and mend motor cars as well? I think that it is a most wasteful way of doing things. You are giving two or three jobs to a man who knows only one job, and he must be good at one or the other—either mechanics or the cavalry work. When you get your machine-guns, you make troops or squadrons, take them away from the regiment and Brigade them as a separate unit. That is what occurs in war.
I am glad to hear that the armoured car is to be attached as a unit to a Brigade or to a Division. That is the sort of organisation we ought to have for all the cavalry regiments, instead of making them into two or three different arms. The chief fear that I have for this reorganisation in the Army is, that the War Office have not made up their minds what they want and what they want to do. They keep on trying experiments, and it is very dangerous to try experiments on men who may be sent out to risk their lives in a real war. It is quite time that they made up their mind what they do want and what kind of organisation they require, instead of continuing to change, especially as far as the cavalry is concerned. We must not forget that the Army is a fighting weapon, and that it is not a weapon to be shown at military tournaments. Although the War Office have done away with the lance in the field, they allow it at military tournaments. If the lance is to be kept as a military weapon at all, it should be used not at military tournaments or other shows, but in the field. A further criticism of the Estimates is that the number of our fighting men has gone down. What counts in the field are fighting
men, and it is time to keep the organisation on a fighting basis and not on a training or experimental basis.

Mr. TINKER: We do not criticise the Army because it is an Army. We desire that such Army as we have shall be efficient. The question of the efficiency of the cavalry has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. His speech reminds me of a speech which he made last year. He dealt with exactly the same point last year, in defending the efficiency of the cavalry. He stated that the cavalry were all right if they did not meet barbed-wire.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I said nothing about barbed wire.

Mr. TINKER: I will quote from the speech which the hon. and gallant Member made last year. He said:
I view with great suspicion these proposals to do away with one squadron in every regiment and mechanise the first line of transport and part of its armament. I think the Secretary of State seems to forget what cavalry is. It is not a collection of men marching with motor cars pushed here and there. A cavalry man is a man and his horse combined together with a very nasty bit of steel which he has in his hand, and if you get in the way he will stick you with it."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th March, 1927; col. 919, Vol. 203.]

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I think it is my speech which the hon. Member is quoting, and not the speech of my brother.

Mr. TINKER: The speech from which I am quoting was made by Colonel Clifton Brown, and when I heard the name of "Clifton Brown" called, I thought it was the hon. and gallant Member who made the speech last year. I confused the names, and I beg the pardon of the hon. and gallant Member. We maintain that the cavalry is not an essential part of the Army. If we are to economise, we must do away with redundant services. There is not the slightest need at the present time for cavalry. The mechanisation of the Army and the changed character of warfare have made cavalry unnecessary. In the old days there was need for cavalry, but there is no need for it to-day. The Secretary of State for War pointed out last year that he had not sufficient data to deal with the question of the cavalry,
but that he hoped in the ensuing 12 months to obtain data and to see what could be done to reduce the cavalry. I expected, in view of the fact that the Cavalry was reduced from 28 regiments to 20 after the great War, that there would have been a greater cut below the existing 20 regiments; but we find that, although the Army has decreased in numbers by 13,000, there has been a fall of only 55 men in the cavalry service. One sees at once that the Secretary of State for War intends to retain that arm of the Service. I hope he will accept my assurance that, although we want a very efficient Army, we do desire that the service which is no longer of any use should be abolished. We have in this House a number of cavalry leaders, with the idea in their minds of what a horse has done in the past, and because of that they claim that we must retain the cavalry arm. Anyone who went through the last War must realise that the horse soldier was of very little use. [HON. MEMBERS: "Palestine!"] I agree that they were of use in Palestine, but can any hon. Member deny that in France and on the Belgian front when the cavalry were brought out time after time they were sent back, and were not of the slightest use.

Lord APSLEY: What about 1918?

Mr. TINKER: Even in Palestine and Mesopotamia now, with the Air Service, cavalry is of no use whatever. In olden times, when we had to send out the cavalry to discover things, it was because we had not an Air Service. Now we have an Air Service, and for reconnaissance purposes the cavalry is no longer needed.

Lord APSLEY: The Air Service admit that they cannot do technical reconnaisance. You cannot draw fire with a reconnaissance from the air. Silence is essential in reconnaissance and strategical reconnaissance can only be done by mounted troops at the present moment.

Mr. TINKER: I disagree with the hon. Member. I have seen a bit of this sort of warfare, and before I saw it, I had the idea that the cavalry were essential. You can send reconnaissance parties out without horses and draw fire much more effectively than by sending out horse soldiers.

Major ROPNER: Will the hon. Member say where he saw it?

Mr. TINKER: Saw what?

Major ROPNER: Reconnaissance.

Mr. TINKER: I have done reconnaissance on three fronts.

Major ROPNER: In Palestine?

Mr. TINKER: Yes, in Palestine. There are one or two Members on these benches who have been out. Had I not known something of this subject I would have remained silent.

Major ROPNER: I did not mean for one moment that the hon. Member had not been out. I was merely asking for information.

Mr. TINKER: It has been said that reconnaisance work has to be done in silence. Reconnaissance by a man and a horse cannot be done in silence. It can be done much better without a horse. Of course, with a horse you can get away more quickly, but at the present time with machine-gun fire so deadly, when a horse and man goes on reconnaissance the horse soon goes down. My point is, that we should not retain any arm of the Service which has practically become extinct. As we pass from stage to stage and with the different inventions coming along, we have to drop something or we shall never effect any economy in the Army Service. I wish to impress upon the Secretary of State for War and his staff that they should not be influenced so much by the views of hon. Members opposite who have been in cavalry regiments and who wish to retain that spectacular side of the Army. I agree that for recruiting purposes it is most attractive. When the trooping of the colours takes place, there is no more impressive sight than the vast array of horses, but on the effective side the cavalry to-day is not, of the slightest use. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take heed of our views in regard to this matter, that he will realise we desire an effective fighting service, as long as armies are needed, and that we want the redundant parts abolished.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the views of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I was not a cavalry soldier but an infantry soldier.

Mr. TINKER: So was I.

6.0 p.m.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In India, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Egypt and in other distant countries you are bound in the future and always to use cavalry, and I think it would be a very great mistake if we were completely to do away with cavalry regiments. The Secretary of State for War has told us that he is experimenting this year by converting two regiments of cavalry into armoured car sections, and two regiments of cavalry are to be utilised for the purpose of reconnaissance; but until we can get silent reconnaissance, until machines can be made to work silently, they cannot take the place of cavalry.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is economising to the extent of £1,000,000. Looking through the Estimates, I see £500,000 of economies, and I can only surmise that the other £500,000 is due to less money being received from the Treasury. The sum of £1,500,000 for troops in Germany has been reduced to £1,000,000, and at the same time one of the causes given for the reduction in numbers is "Reduction of the British Army on the Rhine"; so that, anyhow, there would be a cause of reduction in expenditure owing to the reduction of troops on the Rhine. I am very glad to see economy effected and to see the War Office looking after the pockets of the taxpayers, and I think they have done it very well on this occasion; but I hope that they are cutting down non-essentials and not cutting down essentials.
When I look at the figures for the Army and see that for this year the figure is over 250,000 less than in the year before the War, and then I look at the staff at the War Office and see that, it has increased from pre-War days, I do think that there is some chance there for economy. I put a question to the Secretary of State for War last year with regard to the military prison at Working, which I am glad to know has been closed as a result of my question. Every prisoner in that military prison was costing the State to keep him there more than it costs to educate a boy at Eton, and the prisoners probably would have remained there had it not been for my question. I am sure that in various staffs there are people who are dug in in soft jobs, and if people would only look into
these cases and discover them, certain economies might very well be effected.
I notice that the number of recruits for the Army is 2,500 below the present establishment strength. When I was in Ireland the other day I met a number of ex-soldiers, and they said to me, "Our fathers and our grandfathers served in the British Army. We have Army traditions and were brought up in Army traditions, and there are a great many of us who would like to serve the British Army to-day." Would it not be possible for the War Office to come to some arrangement with the Free State Government, and either officially or unofficially, with members of the British Legion in Ireland, or with the British Legion Associations, by means of which these most excellent recruits, who are desirous of serving in the British Army, could come over and serve? The Free State Army to-day is more of a militia than an army, and, naturally, these men are anxious to serve in the British Army. There are parallel cases which I might quote. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who has just come back from India, knows that we raised 20,000 troops from Nepal, on condition that neither missionaries nor travellers were allowed to go into the country. Nepal is an independent country, but the recruiting officers are allowed to go there and the recruits make good soldiers. Could not some parallel arrangements be made for recruiting in the Irish Free State? If so, we should get an excellent class of recruits.
With regard to the Territorial Force, I was sorry to see a drop in the strength of the Force although the number of officers has increased. I think that decrease is very much due to the change over from the bounty to the proficiency grant. I am glad that the tide is turning and more recruits are coming in. The Territorial Army is the cheapest second line of defence that any country could possibly have. I was sorry to find that the Secretary of State thought it necessary to deduct 2½ per cent., or £40,000, from the grants to the Territorial Associations, and, in addition, is taking away £21,000 from the training grants, which is still more serious. The time of training is short, and there are many other opportunities for reduction rather than taking away money which would
provide for these essential training times, of which the Territorial soldiers have so few. There is another small point, which I raised last year—whether the ugly title of Colonel- Commandant is to be abolished and replaced by the term Brigadier? Last year I was told that when the Army Estimates came up for consideration the change would be announced. Possibly, it has slipped my right hon. Friend during the course of his most interesting speech. With regard to the alteration in the infantry battalions, I heard a criticism the other day of the four anti-tank guns which are being given to infantry battalions, and I was told that their effective range is only 80 yards. I do not know whether it is true, but that is commonly current in the Army at the moment. I see that the new Imperial Defence College has been started. Will this conflict with the duties of the Staff College? I should like to hear more about this College. Is it for the purpose of training officers of the Army and Navy on questions of Imperial defence; and will it in any way overlap the training that is given in the Staff College? I will not trespass on that very difficult question, over which the Secretary of State skated so lightly, namely, the alteration in the position of the Quartermaster-General. I hope that during the next year every opportunity will be taken to test this new organisation, and that when it has been thoroughly tested we shall have an inquiry on the lines of the Esher Committee, without bias as to whether it is a success or not.
There is to be an extra staff officer in the field. I look rather with suspicion on an increase in the number of staff officers in the field. The Secretary of State says that there is to be no extra expenditure, and that means that some redundant staff officers will be done away with. That could be done in any case in the cause of economy. I hope my right hon. Friend will have a careful inquiry into this matter, on the lines of the Esher Committee, on tactical routes and other routes, with exhaustive experiments. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having taken into account the advance of science in warfare and at the same time the pockets of the taxpayer
in the Army Estimates he has produced this year.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I desire to join in the apprehensions expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) in regard to this reorganisation at the War Office and in the field necessitated by the advance of mechanisation. Before considering the Army Estimates, this House, and the outside public, should be far more fully informed as to what led up to this reorganisation, the Committee which inquired into it, and the evidence which was given, which in the mind of the Army Council justify the change. We are given some idea in the Memorandum which has been issued, but the reasons are set forth somewhat sketchily, and after nine years' service on the Quartermaster-General's staff during the War and in peace time I remain rather unhappy and unconvinced by the arguments advanced in support of the change. For the benefit of those Members of the House who may not be absolutely conversant with the duties of the Quartermaster-General up to this change, let me say that he has been responsible for the provision, inspection, maintenance, distribution and repair of all mechanically-propelled vehicles held on Army charge. He carried out those duties through the two branches of the Army, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Royal Army Service Corps, and in the course of time the Quartermaster-General collected around him officers of great experience and skill, and built up a system which, I think, everyone will agree stood the greatest test of all in the War.
Now, apparently, we are going to scrap that system, and before this drastic step is taken, I think tlis House and the country should know more about it. Why is the step being taken? Is it because of this rapid growth of mechanically-propelled vehicles, armoured cars, tanks and their concomitant transport vehicles? Is it because this growth is inclined to give the Quartermaster-General's department too much control? From the statements which have appeared in the Press one is inclined to suspect that this fact has guided and influenced the Army Council. Some years ago, just after the War, an effort was made to bring about what has now been effected, but owing to the number of general officers on the Army Council and the Departmental
chiefs in the War Office, who had just come back from the War full of experience and knowledge, very capable, that effort was cramped and stifled. The Army Council set up a Committee to inquire into the whole position. They knew that mechanisation had to come, although they could not have known that it was coming so quickly. But the Committee was set up, and I suggest that this House should be taken into the confidence of that Committee. We should know the evidence which was given, and the findings of the Committee. They should be published so that all the world could see them and be convinced that the Secretary of State is taking the right step in making this change.
Why has the Army Council changed its mind since those days? I put forward this suggestion with supreme diffidence, but is it because there are four members of the Army Council who have actually no war administrative experience? If that be correct, as I have reason to believe it is, then it is a serious step to take against the preponderating advice of the Army Council, and this supposition more than ever confirms my view that the views of the Committee should be made public. What does the new proposition really mean? We know for what the Quartermaster-General has been responsible in the past, how well he has carried out, his duties and how well he has administered his Department. What is to be the future? In the future the responsibility is removed from the Quartermaster-General over all mechanically-propelled vehicles not actually on the strength of the Royal Army Service Corps. In effect, we are setting up two controls. In the first category there is all mechanically-propelled vehicles not on the strength, and in this you have the first line infantry, which means that you have to hold mechanical transport depots for the Army Ordnance Department, who are charged with the responsibility of looking after the first category of machines, and also depots charged with the responsibility of looking after Royal Army Service Corps vehicles on Royal Army Service Corps charge.
You have dual control, dual responsibility, dual expenditure and, I suggest, without any corresponding efficiency. You are creating an increasing number of staff officers, one in the field, which the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose
has mentioned, and you are increasing the Ordnance staff officers under the control of the Master-General of Ordnance at the War Office. I cannot see the necessity for such staff officers. The Quartermaster-General found it unnecessary to have them in the past, and I do not see why it should be necessary to have them now. I am one of those who are not satisfied that the Master-General of Ordnance is required at all in peace time. He was the product of the Esher Committee, but they had no idea that a war of such dominating size was about to break on the world, and as soon as the War started the Ministry of Munitions took over the work of the Master-General of Ordnance. Should another war break out, the same thing would happen. The Master-General of Ordnance at the War Office is redundant at the present time. It is all very well to criticise, and I know that it does not lead very far, but I want to make a few constructive suggestions which, I think, will make for efficiency and economy. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has probably considered every one of them and turned them down for reasons which he may consider are very adequate.
I would reduce, first, the cost of the War Office by starting at the head. I would have a Major-General as director of artillery munitions, and not a Lieut.-General on the Army Council, as is proposed under the new regime. I would then put all the ordnance factories under a civil member of the Army Council. They are civilian establishments, maintained by civilians, and they should be run as a business proposition by a civil member of the Army Council. That civil member could administer these ordnance factories through the Director-General of Ordnance Factories. Then I would leave all questions of research to the Director-General of Artillery. That would leave the provision, maintenance, care, and inspection of all mechanically-propelled vehicles with the Quartermaster-General, as in the past. This, I believe, would lead to economy and increased efficiency, and would not disturb the system which we all know and which has proved to be one of the most satisfactory the world has seen.
I would mention, in conclusion, two facts of which, perhaps, the Secretary of State is already aware. This system
when first proposed was opposed by two Quartermasters-General during the War. It was also opposed by the Quartermasters-General in France and Palestine. Therefore, with such weighty opposition to the proposals—and in this matter I share the opinion of other hon. Members who have spoken—I think this House ought to make its voice heard and that such another Committee, as the Esher Committee, ought to be set up to consider this whole question, and all its implications, before these Estimates are adopted.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like to intrude for a few minutes, perhaps at the risk of interfering with the flow of technical knowledge and advice which has been tendered to the House, to offer a few remarks on these Estimates from the point of view of the people in this country who think that the world might be carried on quite successfully, without the same amount of expenditure as that which we now incur on armies and navies. I put forward my views with the utmost respect for the people who hold extremely opposite views, on these benches and on the other benches. I listened to the speech by the Secretary of State and to one or two of the speeches from the other side in which lances and bayonets were spoken of as if they were the instruments of a parlour game and as if the pushing of a bayonet or a lance into the body of a human being and extracting the internals, was something that we might consider just as calmly as a movement by one of our favourite football teams. I submit that this manner of dealing with our disputes is a method of barbarism which ought not to appeal to us in the twentieth century; and that it would be much better for this country and the world at large, if the wonderful brain power and industry of the Members who have been guiding us this afternoon, were diverted to the saving and improving of human life rather than human destruction. I am sure if we could have a demonstration on the Floor of the House of what all this means, there would not be the same amount of applause for the providers of warlike requisites. If we could, for instance, have a demonstration on the Floor of the House of a person being bayoneted——[Laughter.] I put forward that suggestion respectfully. If from among the
hundreds of thousands of lives that are destroyed on the battlefield, one person could be brought to the Floor of the House——

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman volunteer himself?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am assuming that for such a nationally beneficent purpose, the people who are so fond of war for others, would provide the necessary victim for a demonstration of that kind. I think if, from among these hundreds of thousands, we could have one person who would volunteer to endure here exactly what had to be endured in France, or if we could go out on the Terrace and see human beings, probably women and children, being bombed, there would be less enthusiasm, and indeed less respect for the promoters and the engineers of war. I submit that this is a year in which it would have been creditable to this country if we had made some real contribution to the cause of universal peace. There is not the slightest contribution in the statement which has been submitted to the House. It is quite true that there is to be a reduction of £500,000 in the amount to be spent on armaments this year, but the cheapening of war and the abolition of war are two quite different things; and what we should be devoting our attention to, is, not so much the cheapening of war, as the elimination of war from the world's processes.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the number of the Regular Army was to be reduced by 13,000. Unfortunately, I had to leave the House for a few minutes in the course of his speech and I am not sure if he also pointed out that the Army Reserve is to be increased by exactly the same number. Indeed, the number of persons to be trained for killing during the present year is to be greater than the number in training last year, because not only is the Army Reserve to be increased by the number by which the Regular Army is to be reduced, but the supplementary force is also to be increased. It is worth while emphasising the fact that when all this is going on, the ordinary industrial population of this country is physically deteriorating. One can read in the report submitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself that there has been a falling-off in recruiting for the year.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: A hopeful sign.

Mr. WHEATLEY: That, perhaps, would be a more hopeful sign, if it were due to the fact that the number of people applying for admission to the Army was actually less than the number required. But we have figures on record showing that, of 83,814 who applied last year, 50,396 were rejected as unfit. Those figures have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) but I think it will do no harm to repeat them because they reveal an appalling situation—a situation which influences the fate of this country far beyond the bounds of the Army. What is happening here? In a time of peace you are taking the cream of the industrial population and putting it for training behind barrack walls, and you are sending back into industry the sixty per cent. of applicants who have been rejected. In 1928, the future of Britain is not going to be determined on the battlefield. In 1928, the future of Britain, to a very considerable extent, will be determined in the workshops of this country. It is in the workshops of the country that you will be meeting Germany this year and not in France or Flanders; and you are sending the rejects, the men who are unfit for military training, into the workshops to fight the destinies of Britain against the free men of America and the more physically fit people in other parts of the world with whom this country is in industrial opposition.
We read in the same report something else of great interest to the people of this country. There has been a great deal of criticism during the past year of the attitude of the Government towards the trade unionists of this country and towards the standard of life of the working class. We read in this Memorandum about what is called vocational training—that is the training which soldiers receive to prepare them for civil life when their period in the Army ends. One would like to know a little more about this vocational training. For what period are the men trained and how does the apprenticeship which they undergo, compare with the apprenticeship of the same class of people in the same trades in industry? It would be interesting to know if this vocational training is improving or depreciating the standard of craftsmanship of the people of the country.
I think we are entitled to an answer to these questions—how many hours per week and how many weeks are men trained, say, to be bricklayers; what training have they had by the time they are turned loose in the industrial field; are the trade unions invited to co-operate in the training of these people; are the trade unions recognised in the matter at all, or, is it the fact, as I believe it is, that the men on the Government benches here who are appealing to this side for industrial co-operation are actually using the Army to break down the apprenticeship system and generally lower the standard of craftsmanship of the industrial population?
We would like to know also to what extent the Employment Exchanges are used for the placing of these men, because the Employment Exchanges were set up by the Government, and we expect the Government to patronise them as well at the private employers. I find that a booklet has been published, entitled "Guide to Civil Employment for Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen." It would be interesting to know where the vacancies are in industry to which these men are guided. Could not that information be extended to the industrial population? It would be interesting to the 1,000,000 men who are now walking the streets unemployed. Another remarkable piece of information in the Memorandum is that a scheme which was in existence for sending soldiers and their families to Western Australia has been scrapped. What has happened to Western Australia? Only about a week ago I took part in a discussion here, when we were being urged to send 1,000,000 of the industrial population of this country to Australia under the Empire Settlement scheme. We are now told by the Government that, having tested Western Australia, they find it quite unsuitable for emigration and have scrapped their scheme for sending soldiers and soldiers' families there.
The point I wish, principally to deal with is this. For what reason is an Army of this size required in a time of peace? Of whom are we afraid? Are we afraid of attack and, if so, from what quarter is the attack expected? Are we expecting, for instance, that America will attack us if we reduce the size of the Army? It is positively unthinkable that, even if you reduced the size of the Army
to half of what is proposed this afternoon, America would take advantage of that reduction to attack Great Britain and make us a subject race. Nor can it be supposed that we are afraid that France will attack us. France is our friend and ally, and one cannot contemplate, in view of the history of the past few years, France using its army to attack a country like ours if we had a small standing army. There is no evidence at all anywhere that you need the large army that you are asking us to provide to-day. Germany is helpless. Mussolini is our friend. We are the great admirers of Mussolini. He is the great friend of this country, and I am sure that if this country was in danger, Mussolini would be one of the men who would rally to our support.
Is it that we are afraid of an attack from Russia? Why, Russia is the one country in the world that is leading us to-day into the paths of peace—[Laughter]——I can quite understand hon. Members opposite laughing, because the Russians have made all your speeches about disarmament the laughing-stock of the world. Your League of Nations, all your proposals for disarmament., and your professed love of peace are held up to ridicule by the simple, honest proposals of the Russians. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have an army of 3,000,000!"] The hon. Member opposite says there are 3,000,000 Russians trained for war, and that we have only perhaps a tenth part of that number in this country. Does that not make the Russian offer all the greater? The Russians come forward and they say at the League of Nations, where you are supposed to be discussing disarmament, "We are prepared here and now to enter into a universal agreement for the total abolition of armaments." You may say it is bluff, but why not call their bluff? Would it not be one of the heaviest blows that you could deal at the honesty of the Russians, if you asked them to make good their pledge, and they quibbled or withdrew their promise?
But they have been complete and detailed in their proposals. They have said they are prepared to abolish armaments, the manufacture of armaments, anything relating to armaments, their imports and their exports, and dealing with them in any way, and all that within 12 months,
on condition that you indicate that you are prepared to do likewise; or, they say, "As a test of our honesty, we are prepared to spread the disarmament over a period of four years." What can you lose by taking that on? If they, in the first year, refused to scrap one-fourth of their Army in return for your having scrapped one-fourth of yours, the process could then be stopped. If they kept their pledge and scrapped the fourth of their Army, could you not then, with greater confidence, enter into the next year and scrap the second quarter and, in that way, bring us towards universal peace? Why should you not respond to an appeal like that? From an industrial point of view or from a human point of view, there is everything to be said for that policy, and not a word to be said against it.
With the enormous influence that Britain wields to-day among the nations of the earth, it gives it an opportunity of contributing to permanent and universal peace in a manner that would gain for it a glorious position among the nations of the earth and in the history of the world. I do not think there Is anything more noble that any nation has done in history than Britain could do here by responding to the appeal that has been made from Russia towards the total abolition of the instruments of war among the human race. Britain, if it responded, would become automatically the world's saviour and the world's benefactor. Why should we refuse to take the little risk that there would be in gradual disarmament, when, if successful, it would enable us to bring a blessing to the world such as we have never contemplated in our political dreams?
Look at it from another point of view. We have been listening to and reading all sorts of sneers at the agnosticism and the anti-Christian views of the Russians during the past nine or ten years. It is not the agnostics, it is not the anti-Christians, who are standing up for war. It is the anti-Christians who are telling us that we should not have poison gas, that we should not have bayonets, that we should not have lances, that we should not have mechanised armies, human armies, or any armies at all. It is the despised Russians who are asking us to respond to principles which we have always claimed to be Christian principles,
and it is the Christians who are objecting, it is the Christians who say that we cannot live on this earth, we cannot manage our daily affairs, we cannot carry on our international relations without the means of killing men, women, and children. That is the Christian doctrine. You can reject the Prayer Book, but you cannot reject Militarism. You can claim to be Christians in words, but you refuse to be Christians in deeds, and in these things it is deeds that count. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
These holiest people are coming forward and asking you to practise what you preach, but rather than run the risk of losing an ounce of your prestige, your profit, your wealth, or your position, you insist on the maintenance of a system which periodically drives the nations into war with one another, sends millions of people who have no quarrel with each other on to a battlefield to take each other's lives, to determine quarrels about which they know nothing, about the elements of which they have never been told, and which they will never understand; and, at the same time, you presume to pay reverence to the Prince of Peace. I submit that this does not place Britain in an honourable position. Britain could become more glorious if it practised its Christian principles and said to these people in the Eastern part of Europe: "We are prepared to join you in the elimination from the path of life of these instruments that have proved so horrible in the past, and to make an honest effort to run this world of ours in the 20th century without the destruction of human life or the shedding, of human blood."

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I should like someone much more capable of doing it to have followed the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in the remarks he has just made, but the Committee will, I hope, forgive me if I say one or two sentences about them. I often wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman really realises the full implication of what he is saying. Even as he passes from one sentence to another, I doubt if he realises the utterances he makes in his own speeches. In the speech to which we have just listened, he began by saying we were taking the cream of our industrial population and putting them into the Army, or Navy, or
Air Force or the Territorial Force, and then he said he believed that in so doing we were affecting our position in the markets of the world. Not content with that, the right hon. Gentleman objected to the Army returning this cream of our industrial population back to industry when they have finished their service. Surely the negation of logic could hardly have gone further.
He said he wished to see this year a year of peace, and that Russia had made a gesture of peace, to which we had. refused to respond. Is he really as ignorant as he appears? Does he not realise that the whole history of Europe, not only for the last 12 months, 18 months, or two years, but ever since the War, teems with instances in which Russia has endeavoured to arouse strife? Has he sat here and heard the answers to questions about China? Have they not penetrated his mind? Has he not heard about India? Does he not know what is happening there in regard to the Russians?

Mr. MAXTON: What is happening there?

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I shall be very glad to inform the hon. Member. It is quite well known that Bolshevik agents are endeavouring, unsuccessfully, I am glad to say, to penetrate India and to raise trouble there. Is the right hon. Gentleman also ignorant of the size of Russia's Army and of the number of men under arms in Russia? Is he not aware that for a foreign nation which has increased its armed forces far beyond what can possibly be necessary for defence to go to our own nation, which has kept its armed forces only within the limits of what is required for defence, and then to say, "Diminish a quarter of your Army, and we will diminish a quarter of ours"—can he not realise, if anyone could believe in the bona fides of Russia, that such an offer could only result in placing our country at a disadvantage? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that Russia can be trusted to fulfil any single promise, by whomsoever made or by whomsoever signed in her name? If he does. I believe even hon. Members of his own party will not follow him in that belief.
He comes into this House and pours scorn on our Army and talks of the
suffering it inflicts, but he forgets the suffering that is inflicted in identical disputes by intimidation not only on men but on women and children. It leaves him unaffected. He raises no voice of dissent then. It is only when the right hon. Gentleman fears that some of the evil which he would willingly inflict on others may be inflicted on him that he talks of the beauty of peace. When the right hon. Gentleman comes and talks in this House of being ashamed of his country, I am reminded of a story told of the late Dr. Page. In the early stages of the War, one of his countrymen went to him and said: "I am ashamed of my country," and Dr. Page responded: "Sir, I can assure you the feeling is reciprocated."
I have listened in the earlier part of the Debate with, perhaps, not so much interest but a great deal more instruction, to the remarks of hon. Members with regard to the main proposals in the Estimates which we are now considering. I regard the two main proposals as, first, the reorganisation of the offices and, secondly, the mechanisation of the Army. I join at once with those hon. Members who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on the general results which have attended his efforts at combining economy and efficiency. There remain in my mind two doubts. I have a doubt whether this reorganisation of the offices is, on the whole, the best solution of what is admittedly a very difficult problem. I differ entirely from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) in regard to the retention of the whole of the mechanical transport under the Quartermaster-General. I, like him, had some experience of staff duties during the Great War. The Great War threw up many great men. Not the least of these men was the Quartermaster-General in France, and even then, before mechanisation had arrived at one quarter the distance along the road that it has now travelled, the task of the Quartermaster-General, great officer as he was, was as much as he could bear; and I do not think that, if that same officer or any officer who was closely concerned with the conduct of affairs in France were asked whether he would advise that the
whole of the mechanical transport in all its forms should remain under the Quartermaster-General, and that he should also remain burdened with his other duties, he could not accept that as a sound solution. This is not something of which hon. Members can follow the full intricacies, and I am only going to make one suggestion.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot go a step further in the process, a step which has already been indicated in his White Paper, and say that in the field we should have definitely a chief administrative staff officer parallel to, and co-equal with, if it be possible for these officers to be equal, with the Chief of the General Staff. It is in that way that the solution lies. You cannot multiply staff officers in the field indefinitely and still maintain the freedom of action which the Commander-in-Chief must have. You cannot allow him to have a large number of heads of departments to control without restricting his actions. Anyone who was in France during the Great War would realise that the solution which would be most effective, and which we have to come to in time, and which it would be better if we could accept at once, is that of a chief administrative staff officer. If that be accepted, all the other difficulties which have been mentioned appear to me to fall to the ground.
With regard to mechanisation of the two cavalry regiments which are going to be transformed, this is a subject on which I think hon, Members as a whole are probably not as able to offer an opinion as are members of the Army Council. At the same time, the House with its recent knowledge of the Great War must realise that the whole tendency is undoubtedly towards the removal of the horse from the work at present cast upon it. I do not agree with my hon. Friend who spoke from these benches that there will always be work for the cavalry. I do not think any human mind is entitled to say that, but I do say from my knowledge of conditions in the East, that at the present moment you cannot do away with all cavalry. We have to advance slowly, and if the right hon. Gentleman on occasion resists the pressure of the Army Council, who may desire to go faster, he deserves the approval and support of the House.
There is one other point with which I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal when he replies, and it is a very important one to the Army though it is not reflected in the Estimates. It concerns the supply of officers. I am impressed by the fact that, from all I hear, the supply of officers coming forward for commissions from Woolwich and Sandhurst is not as large as it should be, nor can the candidates be said to come up to the intellectual standard that we would desire of officers joining the Army. This is again a very difficult problem. One obvious way to increase the supply of officers, as of everything else, is to increase the price or pay to the necessary extent. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the same result could not be obtained by lowering the age at which candidates are asked to leave their public school to go into the two Military Colleges. I have heard it stated by men who ought to be in a position to know, that the public schoolboy at the age of 14 and 15 is very often anxious to go into the Army. Later on, for reasons which are obvious and natural, at the age of 16 and 17, when in his holidays he sees the greater freedom of civilian life, discipline may cease to appeal to him, and he desires to go in for other branches of life. Another practical consideration is that parents have spent a large amount of money on the education of their boys up to the age of17½ and if a boy at that age shows any inclination to go into industrial life, which will probably reduce the expenses of the parents, there is a tendency for the parents to encourage him to enter the industrial field. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether an investigation cannot be made as to what would be the effect if the age of entry into Woolwich and Sandhurst were reduced to 16½. it is at that age that the Navy takes boys out of public schools, and it invariably gets a good supply of boys. It may not be because of the age only, but it is a remarkable contrast that, while that is so at the age of 16½ with regard to the Navy, military schools, when they begin to call for candidates at 17½, do not get so good a supply.
With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about India agreeing to accept the alterations which are desirable for reasons of drafts and other
reasons, I do not think that the small amount that has been done in that way at present is likely to cause any unrest so far as the position of the Army in India is concerned, but that is a point which requires watching very carefully. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt realises that there may come a time when the armament, equipment and organisation required at home may be different from that which is required in India. That being so, having regard to the problems India may have to face, she must take preference. The Estimates appear to me to have achieved as fully as possible the desirability of combined efficiency and economy.

TERRITORIAL ARMY.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House, recognising the public spirit shown by all ranks of the Territorial Army, is of opinion that further improvement in its efficiency is required, in view of its increased importance in the scheme of Imperial security.
I regret that this year again we have no opportunity of discussing the Estimates of the three fighting services together. It would be a great advantage from every point of view if we were to get that opportunity. My Amendment begins by referring to the public spirit shown by all ranks in the Territorial Army. They are not regular soldiers, and the time they devote to military training is given out of their spare time, and they deserve every credit for what they do. The Secrefary of State told us that the number in the Territorial Army on the 1st January this year was about 7,000 less than it was on 1st January last year. He said that the decrease was due to a falling off of recruiting in the spring of last year in consequence of the substitution of a proficiency grant in place of the bounty; he also told us that since July there has been an improvement. If we compare the strength on the 1st January this year, as given in the Estimates, with the strength on the 1st October last year, as given in the general Annual Report on the British Army, the decrease seems to have gone on between October and January, and it is not quite clear when this improvement of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks began to take place. I should like to ask whether
the decrease happened all over the country, or whether it was particularly noticeable in certain localities; also, whether there is any record of the number of recruits rejected on medical grounds? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the reduction in the grants to county associations. I hope that the War Office will be as generous as it can be when it gets any appeals for help from county associations in the way of making suitable provision for offices, or institutes, or messes, or things of that sort. Such things add a great deal to popularising the Territorial Army and are helpful to recruiting.
Is it becoming more difficult to find suitable men as Territorial commanding officers? In addition to possessing military knowledge and aptitude to command, the Territorial commanding officer must have local influence, and must have sufficient leisure to be able to devote adequate time to his duties, and it may be that in these clays it is more difficult to get suitable men. I wonder if it has been considered, where there is a difficulty in getting suitable men, whether it would not be possible as a temporary measure to appoint a major or a senior captain of the Regular Army to command the unit until a suitable Territorial officer could be found? I know that it is done sometimes in artillery units, and perhaps it might be extended to the infantry. If it is considered in the case of an infantry unit, I hope that if a Regular officer be appointed, he will be taken from one of the Regular battalions of the same regiment, and so help to draw closer the Regular and Territorial battalions of the regiment, and to foster that regimental esprit de corps which is so desirable. A matter of this sort wants very careful handling, and great care would have to be taken not to appear to be forcing a Regular commanding officer upon a Territorial unit. It would probably be better if the initiative came from the county association rather than the War Office.
I was glad to hear about the increased help which has been given by the Regular Army to the Territorial Army during their training in camp, in regard to the attachment of staff officers and so on. It is most important that every possible help should be given to the Territorial
Army in carrying out its training. The peace establishment for a Territorial battalion is given as 20 officers and 636 other ranks. The war establishment would be higher than that. That means that on mobilisation, even if a Territorial battalion be up to its peace establishment, it will want a large number of recruits to make, it up to war establishment. They will have to be trained, and that will mean a considerable extra strain on the officers and non-commissioned officers. It might be that circumstances might arise which might necessitate an expansion of the Territorial Army on mobilisation. If that were to happen, it would mean a stilt greater strain on the officers and N.C.O's. and they should receive all the help the Regular Army can give them.
With regard to musketry, has the reduction in the ammunition allowance had any bad effects? Has everything possible been done to provide more range accommodation? Of course, when reductions in expenditure have to be made, the Secretary of State has to decide in what directions those economies have to be effected so as to inflict the least possible damage upon the Territorial Army. But it would be most regrettable if anything was done to lower the standard of musketry efficiency. One of the military advantages we, as a nation, possess is the natural aptitude of our people for marksmanship. The skill of the individual soldier in the use of his weapon was shown in the Peninsular War, and again, to a marked degree, at the beginning of the late War. It would be a great pity if it were not developed as much as possible.
Is there any intention, in the event of war, of using the Territorial Army for the purpose of finding drafts for the Regular Army? I hope not, and that the Territorial Army will be used, as it ought to be used, in its own units and formations. I am asking this question because, as things are at present, there seems to be some temptation to do that for the following reason. It would take a large part of the Regular Army Reserve to bring the Regular Army up to war strength on mobilisation. If you take the late War as a guide, the rest of the Reserve will soon be used up. What will
happen then? In the late War we had the Special Reserve battalions, which were used for the purpose of supplying drafts. Those have been abolished. The Supplementary Reserve contains no infantry non-commissioned officers and men. That is the reason there might be a temptation to call upon the Territorial Army for drafts to the Regular Army. If the right hon. Gentleman means to resist this temptation, as I hope he does, then how is the Regular Army to be kept up to strength after the Reserve has been used up, and before the Regular Army recruits have been trained to take their place in the ranks?
My last question is as to the supply of officers. I am very glad to see that, in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State, he testifies to the good work done by the University tutors and schoolmasters who are officers in the Officers Training Corps. Having been employed in the branch of the War Office dealing with the work of that corps, I know the good work done by those men. They have their own school work to do and, in addition to it, they undertake the work of training these cadets. Is he satisfied with the results he is getting from the Officers Training Corps in the shape of Commissions in the Supplementary Reserve and Territorial Army? I see in the Army Estimates that last year 42 cadets of the Officers Training Corps took Commissions in the Supplementary Reserve and 619 in the Territorial Army. The Secretary of State told us this afternoon that on the 1st January, the Territorial Army was only 805 combatant officers short of establishment. That is not very satisfactory, and I see from the annual report of the British Army that the Supplementary Reserve was some 1,900 officers short on the 1st October. That is not very satisfactory either. Can be indicate any steps that could be taken in order to remedy this serious shortage of officers?

Lord APSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I sympathise entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend in the anxiety that he has expressed as to the future of the Territorial Army. Just as much as any industry or any profession is dependent on its good name to get the proper material into it, and on good management in order to keep that material there when
it has got it, so it is with the Territorial Army, and the Regular Army, of course, is in exactly the same position. The Secretary of State explained to us how the Regular Army had been working and co-operating with the Territorial Forces. On that, as a Territorial officer, I should like to say that nothing could be more admirable or better than the way in which the Regular Army have, in every difficulty and in every way, subject to all sorts of limitations, chiefly financial, helped the Territorial Forces to train and to progress. The idea is now fully established that the Regular Army is the spearhead, and the Territorial Army the shaft, and that one is of no use without the other. As my hon. and gallant Friend has just said, there is still a certain amount of anxiety and uncertainty as to the exact way in which the shaft should be used. Territorial officers and men are not quite certain whether they will be drafted as recruits into the Regular Army or whether they will be used, as they were in the late War, as complete units reinforcing the Regular Army and assisting in operations until the Regular Army has perfected its organisation to supply the expansion and the reinforcements necessary for it.
If, through making the mistake of mixing parsimony with economy, it should be that we find the shaft being gradually whittled down and the spearhead being blunted, not only the Territorial Army but the Regular Army themselves would recognise the lack of efficiency which they would be hound to suffer, and, indeed, the country as a whole would recognise it. It would be leaving us without any possible weapon of offence, but with only our shield and armour, the Navy and Air Force, for defence. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), would like us to drop those, too, but in the present state of progress of the, world it would be extremely dangerous to do anything of the sort while there are a million and a half bandits practising their trade in China and some hundred thousand bandits practising their trade in Mexico—to say nothing of Arabia—and while this country is still considered the only one that can keep the peace when trouble and injury are being caused to inoffensive nations abroad. Such a step will be impossible until a League of Nations has
arisen determined not only to talk but to act and to police a part of the world itself. It is clear that, until this happens, it will be impossible to make a further reduction in our forces without a corresponding decrease in efficiency.
On two occasions lately, this country has very nearly been at war, once with Turkey and on the other occasion with China. On both those occasions it was not the nebulous politician, it was not the astute diplomatist of the Foreign Office, nor the winged words of Mr. O'Malley or Mr. Chen, that brought about the peaceful solution of our difficulties, but rather the tactful handling of the situation by the British commanders who were on the spot, and the fact that the troops were at the right place at the right time. That would not be possible were it not that behind this spearhead of the Regular Army there was the knowledge at the War Office that the Territorial Force was ready. As a matter of fact, on one of these occasions, some of them were under orders to take their place as the shaft to the spearhead. The part played by the soldiers could be illustrated particularly in the case of Turkey. I doubt whether it will really be known, until history is written, that this country was saved from war with Turkey by the fact that a squadron of the 3rd Hussars happened to be at an outlying post half an hour before its time. Had they been half an hour later there is no doubt that we should have been involved in hostilities to get out of which might have been very difficult. In China the tale has still to be told of what was happening there. Territorial units were ready to go and had it not been for the fact that the regular units arrived in time, there is no doubt whatever that they would have had to go. Now we have in front of us a danger in Iraq. I hope it is now passing, and that by judicious diplomacy we may pour oil among the turbulent sands or palms in order that the conflicting tribes may conflict with each other and not with us. Still there is that danger in front of us, and this is not the time at which we can talk about reducing our Army to any further extent.
I come to the big troubles which have been affecting the Territorial Army itself. They are largely caused by a certain amount of perversion—I will not say
abuse—of the blessed word "economy." Where attempts at progress have been made, they have been met by a blank negative or a shrug of the shoulders and the excuse, "We simply cannot afford it." The Secretary of State has heard me in this House before now talking about Peerless armoured cars. I take that as a particular point to illustrate my argument. I have no complaint about the Peerless armoured cars in themselves until a better type is evolved, but what I object to is that the cars themselves are worn out. If my right hon. Friend had had a car which had been through the War in France, had seen service in Ireland, and had been constantly in service since, and which constantly had to be in dock and had the parts dropping out of it, he would not, under the guise of economy, have hung on to the car, but he would have scrapped it as soon as he could and got a new one. After all, the Peerless car is a comparatively simple machine. It consists of an armoured body with a rear drive fixed on to the chassis of a Peerless lorry. Surely the Army could afford to have some bodies put on new lorries. It would not involve such a heavy charge on the War Office.
There is another matter which involves the Territorial Force. and which is at the present moment upsetting them to a certain extent. It is the question of regimental tradition. Perhaps even more than the regular units, the Territorial Army values regimental tradition. In fact, they are almost entirely kept up by it owing to the nature of the Force. It is regimental tradition which keeps them alive. When I talk of units, I must, except the Artillery. The Artillery pay no attention to regimental tradition because they have a different tradition altogether, arm tradition or corps tradition, an entirely different thing. The Artillery have no regiments and no regimental traditions. As a matter of fact, the Royal Regiment of Artillery was one of the most recent creations in the Army, being formed in 1716. It never was a regiment at all and never has been, and it views these matters in an entirely different spirit.
Before that time the Artillery was run by civilian chartered companies, the last of which is the Honourable Artillery Company, now incorporated in the Territorial
Army and quartered in London. That is the last of the chartered companies which used, under contract, to supply artillery to the various warring generals. The officials, who were the directors, were known as master gunners and the men were known as artists. The master gunners wore civilian clothes, which were the equivalent of the modern lounge suit and bowler hat, and the artists wore ordinary working clothes, which were the equivalent of the overalls and the beret affected by the Tank Corps. They contracted to do the work, which might be by land or on sea. If it was on sea, they put their guns in ships and fought under the direction of the captain, subject to their guild and company laws and rules; and if it was on land, they put their guns in a wagon, which was armoured, and was pulled by bullocks, also armoured. They drove their wagons slowly in front of the enemy, firing at anything they could hit. That was the inception of the tank, the earliest form of artillery. It was, in fact, an armoured fire vehicle, which is the present name of the tank. It was displaced by the development of small arms. When it was found that these wagons were no longer practicable, they produced a form of artillery such as is in use at the present day. This is by the way.
The point is that owing to the very nature of artillery they cannot possibly have a regimental tradition. Gunners are moved from one battery to another. Sometimes the personnel is put into another brigade. The guns are constantly being altered. The battery may be heavy artillery one day, and may be put on to sell-propelled vehicles on another day. Officers and men are suddenly moved from one battery to another. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is himself a gunner, his private Parliamentary Secretary is a gunner and the Chief of the General Staff is a gunner, so they will know only too well the truth of what I am saying. This practice, though excellent with artillery, ought not to be applied to other aims of the Service. Napoleon tried it. He removed the old regimental traditions which had been existing in the French Army before his time and substituted for it esprit de corps, which was the tradition of the corps and devotion to the corps commander.
By doing so he did great damage to the French Army which, having slavishly copied this method, has never quite recovered. When the corps commander died or was incompetent, the men could never be relied upon to stand to their ground in the same way that the British regiments did under Wellington, held together by their regimental tradition, which has always been of priceless service in the British Army.
There are two branches of the Territorial Force about which I should like to ask questions, and I hope my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will deal with them when he replies, because the situation at the moment is somewhat obscure and difficult. There is, first, the question of the mounted units, which in the Territorials are represented by the Yeomanry. The cavalry have been reduced considerably since the War, and the right hon. Gentleman forecasted that two regiments will be reduced still further. I cannot think that this is done in the interests of economy only—I hope my hon. Friend will say so when he rises to speak—but that it is in the interests of efficiency also. If it is suggested that it is done for the sake of economy, I would point out that the figures show that a yeomanry regiment is the cheapest unit in the Territorial Army, costing £9,770 a year to maintain, and the next cheapest unit is the three-companies unit of divisional signals, which cost £10,800. It is the same in the Regular Army. A cavalry regiment costs £87,700, whereas a tank battalion costs £192,900, not including petrol, I think, because I do not quite know how the petrol figures are arrived at.
The cost of petrol per tank is very considerable. Much as I admire the Tank Corps, and wish to see them progressive, I think we cannot afford to have more tank battalions than are actually necessary for experimental purposes. It has been calculated by a tank officer that a tank costs about £1 a mile to run, including petrol, oil, the pay of the crew and the wear and tear of the track, which is very considerable. The tracks of some tanks—Vickers' tanks—it is believed, though not yet proved, will not stand up to more than 800 miles of cross-country work. On the roads they will,
of course, stand up to a much greater distance, or over country like that round about Salisbury Plain.
There is, however, the point that a tank battalion is more than twice as expensive as a cavalry regiment. The expenses of cavalry, too, are represented very largely by the forage bill, and forage is grown in this country and its purchases helps the farmers to a certain extent, whereas petrol is produced abroad. At the same time one must allow for the necessity of experiments being made, and we must have sufficient mechanical vehicles to carry on, and if the reduction in the cavalry has been made for that reason, it is thoroughly justified. I must admit, however, that I am rather alarmed lest we may find in the future a great shortage of men who are fit to be brought into a cavalry regiment. Suppose, as happened at the outbreak of the South African War, that we suddenly find we need large numbers of mounted men for a particular operation. We may find that we have to put on horseback tailors and all sorts of people who do not know one end of the saddle from the other, in order to organise a mounted force at short notice, which is a very difficult thing to do. If it is necessary to reduce the regular cavalry, a corresponding reservoir ought to be formed in the ranks of the yeomanry, as part of the Territorial Army.
A certain amount has been said to-day about the uses of cavalry, in order to show that they are not obsolete, and I will not add much on that score, but I would like to refer to what the Secretary of State said about the employment of cavalry for reconnaissance purposes. Reconnaissance is the most important thing in an army before it comes to the actual fighting. There are two kinds of reconnaissance. There is strategic reconnaissance, which is the reconnaissance of large bodies of troops at a distance; and there is tactical reconnaissance, which is the reconnaissance of troops when they are deployed and ready to engage. Strategic reconnaissance used to be performed entirely by cavalry, and it was a most arduous duty. Now it is performed very largely by aircraft and, to a certain extent, by fast Rolls armoured cars, which if there are the necessary roads which they can use, can get round a flank and do valuable work in strategic
reconnaissance. Tactical reconnaissance must be done by mounted troops, because it can only be effected by drawing the fire of the enemy. The enemy must be actually engaged. The ground must be reconnoitred to find out where his front is and where his artillery are and, if possible, where his flank is, and this has to be done by engaging the enemy. For this it is not possible to use infantry, because if they were engaged with the enemy you could never get them away again. You can only reconnoitre with infantry alone by conveying them along any avenues of approach which are particularly vulnerable to artillery fire; thence they would have to go forward on foot and deploy and engage the enemy, and if you get your infantry really engaged—this has happened in many reconnaissances—you find you cannot extricate them, and you are drawn into battle before you are ready. Mounted troops are the only troops which can conduct tactical reconnaissance until a tank shall be designed which can be guaranteed to get into position without falling into ambushes or getting into difficulties through there not having been a reconnaissance over that ground before.
Then there was the question of giving assistance to cavalry in their reconnaissance duties by the provision of a certain number of armoured cars. I wish to ask whether the War Office have considered the nature of the cars to be used for this purpose, because the Rolls car, which so far has not been supplied to the Territorial Force, is an entirely unsuitable vehicle, in my humble opinion, for tactical reconnaissance. It is a fast car, lightly armoured, and can stand up to a certain amount of machine-gun fire, but not very much. It is eminently suited for strategic reconnaissance, for going round a flank, and blowing up a bridge; or for hiding up behind a haystack and counting troops as they go past—as was done in the recent manœuvres—and for special jobs of that sort; but for tactical work you must have a heavier car, heavily armoured, which can stand up to rifle and machine-gun fire, and to shrapnel, too, though no car, of course, can stand up against a direct hit. Also, it must not have pneumatic tyres. In Palestine we had armoured cars operating with the cavalry, and they were never of the slightest use in tactical reconnaissance, because they could not stand up to fire
without getting punctured and becoming unmanageable and having to be evacuated. If cavalry are to be supplied with cars to co-operate with them, a car should be evolved which is an improvement on the Peerless and has a- slightly better armament, perhaps carrying a small pompom, something to "knock up" machine gun nests or farmhouses, perhaps with two automatic rifles in the turrets. In any case, they must have solid tyres, and they must have a rear drive. If you get your car into an ambush, there is no possibility of getting away unless you have a rear gun, because you cannot turn round in a narrow space. All this might prove a great danger to mounted troops. I would suggest that, if it be impossible to re-form any of the yeomanry regiments, it might at least be feasible to raise a certain number of mounted troops to co-operate with the Territorial mechanical units. I think it is realised by the Tank Corps and the armoured car units that they cannot possibly operate alone, because the moment they come under fire they are quite blind; they have only a small telescope, and unless they have other troops to support them they cannot operate effectively. If a number of mounted men were permanently attached to the Tank Corps, I think this would greatly facilitate their work and help them in every way. I should like to know whether any measures are going to be taken to increase the efficiency of the existing Territorial Cavalry and the Regular Cavalry as well.
There is one thing which the Secretary of State for War did not mention about the use of cavalry, and it is that they must be expected to do long marches without any communications at all with the base. I remember what happened during a march from Jaffa to Jerusalem in 1914 when we had no wheeled transport and our supplies were dropped from the air. That is an instance in which the Air Force can be used. If you have to undertake long marches when the enemy is bombing every railway, you cannot ensure a constant flow of supplies in the same way as you were able to do in France during the late War. Your cavalry must be trained to undertake long marches without supplies. In Northern Australia, they trained their horses to do long journeys without carrying any corn at all. While I was out there, I went on an expedition in which
they used some hard track cars, and I wanted to compare their work with horses that had no corn at all. The result was that the horses did 30 miles a day and the cars only between 25 and 26 miles per day. Probably a more efficient type of car may be produced that will do 30 miles a day. At the same time, I hope that the yeomanry and cavalry in this country will practise long cross-country marches.
I confess that I was rather attracted by the idea of the Yeomanry Light Tank Unit. After the War was over the yeoman came back to this country. He and his sons returned home. They took off their armour and put it in the fowl house, put their hotchkiss gun on the mantle-piece, and turned the tankette out into the field to do traction work. Of course, when the tankette is worn out they get supplies of new ones which can afterwards be converted into tanks as required. The vehicle that will stand agricultural work has not yet been discovered, but I think it is important, before we embark upon any new mechanised units, that we should be certain of the amount of work that the tank will stand. I should like to send some of these tanks to Australia to see what they can really do in the way of a long journey. Until we can get a light tank capable of doing a long journey it is no good talking about them as a strategical unit. At the present time, they can only be used as weapons when the opportunity comes, and returned to the base afterwards until another opportunity arrives.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) mentioned the lance, and he said that he was a Lancer. I may say that I am a Hussar. I have seen infantry and cavalry in action, and, although the present modern infantry sword is just as efficient against infantry as the lance, there are occasions when it is not sufficiently long to reach some-one on the ground on the off side. I know, if we had been armed with lance on active service in Palestine, that on one occasion it would have saved the mounted troops a great many casualties. We took a position there and sustained 50 per cent. casualties, whereas, if the men had been armed with the lance, they would not have had half these casualties. There is
a good deal to be said for the lance as a weapon as opposed to the sword. I would suggest as the best solution of the difficulty that one squadron in each regiment should be trained with the lance and another with the sword.
Of course, the rifle has now become quite obsolete for cavalry, and it would be far better that every man should have an automatic rifle and an automatic pistol. All our mechanical troops should have automatic pistols as well as a cutlass like the one used in the Navy. If you are going to have these armoured cars, and the men are armed with nothing but a revolver then it is completely useless. In the case of the tanks used by the Territorial Army and the Regular force, I think the crash helmet should be worn with a pit in the top or a screw, so that it may be used when under fire. During movements in the tank the steel helmet is constantly being knocked off. I suggest that these points should be taken up by the Army Council and seriously considered, because the present cavalry tin hat is the most horrible thing you can wear. I honestly believe that the Territorial Army would be very much gratified if some of these very small problems were put right. If the Financial Secretary to the War Office will assure us that the Territorial Army is not going to be subjected to further cuts or parsimony and if we can have an assurance that the Territorial Army and the Regular Army are not in danger of constantly having to serape and pinch and of losing their work, I am sure such assurances would be highly appreciated.

Earl of DALKEITH: I wish to refer to the question of recruiting for the Territorial Army. As one who is still serving in the Territorial Army and responsible largely for recruiting a battalion in a very scattered division, one realises that the great reduction in expenditure on Territorials makes it much more difficult to obtain recruits. I would, therefore, ask those responsible if they would pay special attention to the needs of the Territorials in this respect in order to make recruiting easier. Because of the need for greater economy, it is now less easy for Commands to send battalions to camps where they will get a change from their district. It is agreed that many officers and men who attend a fortnight's
camp give up their only fortnight's leisure in the year. It is, therefore, all the more important that, in order to encourage recruiting and in order to encourage a large proportion of Territorials to attend camp, great effort should be made to send them to camps which are a change from their own district, and to what are considered attractive situations. I realise that this year, and I suppose in future years, the question of expenses by rail is very important, but I hope, none the less, that attention can be paid to this matter and that recruiting will be stimulated by arranging the best camps that are possible. There is no doubt that would-be recruits pay more attention to where they are going to camp than to almost anything else. In the same way, serving Territorials who are thinking of re-engaging, would think more of this, and look forward to their camp as a holiday as well as regard it as a means of getting training and becoming more efficient.
There is also the very important question of training at drill halls in scattered districts. Unless there is a drill hall with a fairly attractive recreation room attached to it, it is not easy to encourage Territorials to come in for training from
distances throughout the year. It is most important also to have a good band or fifes and drums. A great pride is taken in the band by the unit that can boast of one. The Secretary of State referred to the unselfishness of the Territorial Associations in giving up 2½ per cent. of their grant. I am sure it must be realised that with such reductions as this, a greater burden is put upon those who are interested in the battalions, and that in order to provide such necessary things as I have mentioned, the money in many cases is not readily available and has to be found from other sources. I hope that attention can be paid to the wishes of Territorials in these matters. I think we can congratulate the Secretary of State on the continued reduction in the Army Estimates as a whole, but I would ask for attention to the several points that I have mentioned.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: While joining my Noble Friend in congratulating the Secretary of State on having effected economies of close on £1,000,000, which I think is the more remarkable because the non-effective Vote which is
automatic and outside his control, shows a considerable increase and the effective Vote has had to be reduced more accordingly, there is one special section of the Estimates in which I do hope that further economies may not be called for. In the last few years Territorial Associations have been subjected to financial pressure of different sorts. If I remember rightly, on one occasion their hen-roosts, their reserve funds, were raided. On another occasion the clothing grant was reduced, and a third time the horse-hire grant was reduced. This time the War Office is making an over-all cut of 2½ per cent. in the total amount granted for administration, this cut amounting in all to some £30,000. The country as a whole perhaps hardly realises the value that the Territorial Army gives to it—a value for this reason, that so much of the work is done by Territorial officers and men without payment of any kind.
It is the more important, therefore, that we should keep the Territorials in the right spirit towards the War Office, because the position now is entirely different from what it was before the War. In those days the great majority of Territorials did not sign the Imperial Service pledge. Now no one is allowed to join until he has signed that pledge and has made himself available for service overseas. That adds very much indeed to the value of the Territorial Army. There is the further reason that in the old days it was not known whether the Territorial Army would be used for the purpose of expansion in case of national emergency. It is now the considered policy of the country that new armies should not be created as they were in 1914 and 1915, but that the Territorial Army should be expanded. It is all the more necessary, then, to see that our cadre of Territorials is kept in the most efficient state possible, in view of the possibility—one prays that it may never arise—that the time may come when these battalions have to be got up, first of all to war strength, and then duplicated and triplicated and in some cases even quadrupled as in 1914–1918.
I agree that the War Office has rather a strong position with regard to finance, because it can point to savings of some hundreds of thousands of pounds which had been accumulated by certain county associations up and down the country.
All I can say with regard to that is that the conditions vary immensely in the different areas of the county associations, as between a thinly scattered county and a big industrial area. As regards the numbers, I was surprised to find that the strongest, London, where I happen to have been a member for nearly 20 years, administers a division and a half of some 19,000 men, and the smallest administers, not 19,000 men, but only 57, a half company. That shows the difficulty of having any hard and fast line with regard to finance. There are surpluses that some associations have accumulated, but it does not follow that because one association has many thousands in reserve, another can face the reduction demanded without loss of efficiency. In the County of London Association, the largest of all, the whole amount of the reserve is only about £3,000, and it is £3,000 short that we are to receive this year—a very tight fit.
There is one point on which the War Office may be able to give up a little help. That is in the matter of the mechanisation of artillery. We bought recently, with the sanction of the War Office, eight six-wheeled Morris lorries for the purpose of moving artillery, guns and men, for preliminary training first of all, and then to be used during annual training. I think we are the only association that has yet bought any lorries on these lines, and we used the very small balance that we had in order to pay for them. It would be of great value to county associations up and down the country if the War Office could, as soon as possible, decide what is to be the final form of these mechanised artillery vehicles. At present the contractors are not willing to put up the money, in many cases £400 or £500, until they know what the War Office sealed pattern is. The result is that no other association, or very few associations, can arrange for this form of training; but as soon as the War Office finds by its experiments with the Royal Field Artillery regulars what is the best form, the result will be of great value in the training of Territorial Artillery.
While I know that the Secretary of State cannot say what will be the position next year with regard to the Territorial Army in the matter of finance, yet it will be of great value to Territorial Associations if they can be left for a
year or two with the knowledge that their hen-roosts will not be robbed nor their grants reduced.

8.0 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The majority of the speeches this afternoon have been extremely useful and suggestive, and the first speech, that of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was no exception to the rule. I will now endeavour to reply to some of the many points raised and the questions asked. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, and the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) referred to the number of would-be recruits who had been rejected because of physical deficiencies. It must not be rashly assumed that, because that number may be a little larger this year than last, it shows that there is any deterioration going on in the manhood of the country. There is another possible explanation which must have occurred to the House, and that is that the standard demanded by the recruiting authorities is becoming higher. At the same time, although we regret, as everyone regrets, that the general physical standard of our young men is not better than it is, yet the blame for that can hardly be laid at the doors of the War Office nor at the door of His Majesty's present Governmemt. In the case of those who are presenting themselves for recruitment, their health, for better or worse, was settled long before the present Government took office.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred to the size of the non-effective charges. He pointed out that the charges had increased, and asked for an explanation. He suggested also that careful watch should be kept upon them. I do not quite know what the hon. Member really meant to suggest that the policy of the Government should be in this matter. He cannot have meant that we should in future not provide pensions for people who have left the Service. He seemed to suggest that the larger part of this money was going to ex-officers. I would call his attention to the fact that far the larger part of it is being spent on ex-privates. We must obviously pay some attention to those who have served in the Army, and the only
alternative is to give them higher pay while they are actually in the Service, and that would be a more extravagant and less satisfactory method of dealing with the question. I would also remind the hon. Member that the fact that these charges are now so high is due to previous events—due to the late War particularly—and that, as a matter of fact, the figure has reached, if not the actual peak, at any rate the district of the peak, and we hope that next year or in the years to come we shall see a considerable decline in that branch of expenditure.
The hon. Member also asked about the teachers and the educational department of the Army, how the teachers were trained and whence they came. As explained in the Estimate, these teachers are all trained at the educational centre at Shorncliffe, and everything is done to make sure that they are as fit and capable for their work as it is possible to make them. The results of vocational training during the past year have been extremely satisfactory, and that, also, is pointed out in the Estimates. The facts and figures for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston asked could have been found by him if he had looked at page 109 of the Estimates. The hon. Member for Chesterle-Street also asked about the charge of 7s. 6d. per week made to those attending these vocational centres. I do not think that that was, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, a mistake owing to its driving away from these centres people who ought to be trained. The object of the charge is to prevent people from taking advantage of that privilege who do not really mean to avail themselves of it seriously—people who go there for a change, people who think their last six months would be more pleasantly spent at a vocational training centre, who do not intend really to fit themselves for any particular walk of life, but who are glad of a relief from the ordinary routine and discipline of the Army. That was the object of setting up this charge—to make sure that the people who went there should be really serious people, who were going there with a real purpose. So far as we can judge, it is not having any serious effect upon the system, because we have still more applications
to go to these centres than we can deal with, for it is,, unfortunately, impossible for us to train all of the people who leave the Army—some 30,000 every year. We have more than enough applications, and there are plenty of people who want to go there.
Then the hon. Member asked me a question on a small point about the Kilmainham Hospital, which was taken over in Ireland, and where there are a certain number of pensioners. He suggested that economy might be effected by giving up this hospital and removing these pensioners to some other institution. The difficulty there is that these are old people who have lived all their lives in Ireland, and who have formed an affection for that country, as is not uncommon among those who have lived there for a long period; and it would be inflicting very great hardship upon them to remove them from their own country in the last years of their lives, to cut them off from their own people, and bring them to England. Therefore, I think, that whatever extra expenditure is incurred under that head is amply justified.
The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) asked me two particular questions. One was in reference to a certain disorder which took place, at Aldershot I think, on New Year's Eve, and which was given, as he rightly said, undue prominence in a certain newspaper, which, when the real facts came out, did not contradict the exaggerated report that had been published. I am very sorry that I cannot give the hon. and gallant Gentleman very much consolation on this head, for His Majesty's Government, unfortunately, have no control over that or any other newspaper. It is a not uncommon practice, I am afraid, in some parts of the Press, when they make a statement which they afterwards find to be inaccurate or exaggerated, to make no further reference to it in future. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me that the less that is said about this matter now the better, since any further publicity will only do harm to the regiment which both he and I regret should have been brought into this matter at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked me a question about full dress—whether anything could be done
to make sure that the Regulation under which no one is obliged to purchase full dress should be enforced. Again, I find that that is very difficult to undertake. I do not think that anything that I or the Secretary of State or the Government can do will make sure that a particular Regulation is going to be carried out. There the Regulation is; everyone knows that it exists, and everyone knows that they have to obey it. So far as I am aware, it is, in the majority of cases, duly carried out and observed.
There has been a great deal of controversy this evening with regard to the future of the cavalry, and we have heard from different parts of the House different views with regard to the use of that arm. There is the old-fashioned view that the cavalry is still a valuable arm, that it can never be replaced, that it is dangerous even to diminish it. On the other hand, there is the view expressed by the bon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), a view which is held by infantrymen, and which certainly was held and strongly expressed by them during the War, that the cavalry is of no use whatever. I think that, as usual when we get two entirely opposite views, the truth is to be found between them, and it is that truth in which the Government have believed in following their present policy with regard to the cavalry—in diminishing it, but in maintaining a certain amount of it in as efficient a state as possible, believing, as I think the Secretary of State indicated in his opening remarks that, until some machine can be introduced which will carry out all the functions of a horse as efficiently as the horse itself, some cavalry must remain. I would not for a moment venture to dispute with cavalry officers, especially lancers, upon the merits or demerits of the lance. That, obviously, is a technical matter for them to argue among themselves. For a civilian, who was an infantryman, to take any line in regard to it would, I think, be most injudicious. I would, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) and also my Noble Friend the Member for Southampton (Lord Ansley), who are great supporters of the lance, that the decision to abolish it was come to by a Committee which consisted of military men and not of civilians, that the majority of that
Committee were cavalry officers, and that lancers were represented upon it. I think that that is all I need say with regard to that particular question.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive) asked me various questions with regard to the Territorial Army. He asked, firstly, when the improvement in recruiting had taken place to which reference had previously been made. It began in October of last year. That is the period of the year when recruiting is usually at its best, after the beginning of the autumn, and in this year there was a noticeable improvement as compared with previous months. My hon. and gallant Friend also asked whether there was any lack of commanding officers. I am glad to be able to inform him that I learn that there is no lack of commanding officers in the Territorial Army at the present time. His suggestion that we should, where necessary, fill up the deficiency by drafting in officers from the Regular Army, is a suggestion which, of course, will be borne in mind, but, at the same time, I do not think it would be at all a popular suggestion with the Territorial Army themselves. We have the power at the present time to supply commanding officers to the Territorial Artillery from the Regular Army, and there are now four such commanding officers, but only four. We have the power to appoint 10, but, so far as I know, there is no demand for the appointment of any more.
My hon. and gallant Friend also referred to the question of musketry, and the diminution which had been decided upon in the supply of ammunition to the Territorial Army. He rightly emphasized the importance of musketry, and its value in military affairs. I am sure that everyone responsible entirely shares the view which he has expressed with regard to the importance of this department of military science, and, in making this reduction, we have been guided only by the necessity of effecting economy somewhere. That particular branch having been selected for the making of this economy, the results will be very carefully watched, and, if it is found that there is any real deterioration in the quality of the firing and in the marksmanship of the troops, we shall have to reconsider
the decision and look elsewhere for our economies. We hope and believe, however, that, as a result of the way in which the ammunition will now be distributed, and the careful use that will be made of it, no real deterioration will take place in the quality of the marksmanship of the troops. My hon. and gallant Friend also asked whether it is intended to draft Territorials into the Regular Army to fill up wastage in time of war. That is not the policy of the Government at the present time. The policy would be, should war occur again, to supply such wastage, in the first instance, from the reserves, and then from the new recruits, who would, of course, be enlisted for general service. It is hoped that there would be sufficient in time of war to deal with the matter in its early stages, and that the Territorials will remain Territorials as they are at the present time—that is to say, all those who became Territorials before the outbreak of war.
My Noble Friend the Member for Southampton, in a most interesting and informative speech, in which, in fact, I think he gave more information than he asked for, referred to the difficulty in Territorial battalions of obtaining sufficient mechanical vehicles. He said, and I am grateful to him for the simile, that the Regular Army was a spearhead, but the Territorial Army was the shaft. I think that that is a sound analogy. He will, of course, realise that it is of the first importance to keep the spearhead sharp, and that, where there is competition for advantages, the better advantages will inevitably be given to the Regular Army. If the Territorials consider themselves ill-used at the present time in this particular matter, it is not through any on the part of the War Office, but is solely owing to the fact that there is not enough to go round, and that the needs of the Regular Army must be met in the first instance.
A suggestion is now being considered by the War Office to form one large pool of these mechanical vehicles, from which the Territorial Army could draw during its months of training, and which during the rest of the year will be for the service and use of the Regular Army. I hope that something may come of the consideration of this suggested solution of the problem, but it is an extremely
difficult and complicated matter, and I would remind my noble Friend, and others who followed him, that, in regard to this question of what the vehicles are to be—to which special reference was made by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), who asked when we would arrive at a final decision—no decision can ever be final in a matter of this kind. Obviously, inventions will year by year produce new and better vehicles, and, therefore, we must proceed cautiously, and not undertake large capital expenditure upon machinery which may in a few years be entirely out of date. My noble Friend said he hoped that, in mechanising the cavalry, we were guided by principles of efficiency rather than of economy. Certainly, we are to a large extent, but, as he will realise and agree, efficiency means eeonomy. If you spend more money upon a better article, you are being economical at the same time as you are being efficient, for a better article that will last longer and will more satisfactorily carry out your intentions is always a saving of money in the long run.
With regard to the remarks of my Noble Friend the Member for Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith) and of my hon Friend the Member for East Lewisham, with regard to the Territorial Army, I can assure them both that we have the greatest sympathy with all the objects and aims of the Territorial Army, and that if we have asked them this year to make certain sacrifices the size and importance of those sacrifices will be borne in mind. The difficulty to which the Noble Lord referred of sending troops to suitable camps is considerable. I entirely agree that one of the great attractions which induce men to join the Territorial Army is the prospect of going to a pleasant camp in a pleasant place at the right time of year, but there, again, as in all these matters, we are faced with the same old difficulty of expense. It is obviously impossible, to move large bodies of men from the North of Scotland to the South of England in order that they may spend their holiday there without incurring tremendous expense, and this question in the main, like every other question, is controlled by the consideration which controls so many of our movements, the consideration of how much money we have to spend.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston delivered a speech which was in quite a different tone from any of the others that we have heard. He thought it suitable to deliver a lecture upon the blessings of peace. Such a lecture is probably never out of place, though I am not sure that it is really relevant to a discussion of the Army Estimates. It seems to me rather as at a debate of a musical society some-once were to advocate the beauty of silence. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman considers the Russian disarmament proposals have made the League of Nations look ridiculous. That was, of course, the sole object of the Russian disarmament proposals, and I am sorry he thinks it has been entirely successful. We are all in favour of disarmament and peace. The right hon. Gentleman talked of those who delight in war. Where are those people? They are not on these benches. They are, in my opinion, nowhere in the world to-day. We all desire peace, and we all desire disarmament, but no sane man, and no wise advocate of peace, believes complete disarmament is an ideal within our reach. While we await the happy time which we can hope to see when war shall be no more and disarmament shall be complete, it is our duty, according to our policy, to make sure that our armaments shall be as small and as efficient and as cheap as we can possibly make them. It is in that belief that we are carrying out this policy and that we submit these Estimates to the House to-day.

Mr. LAWSON: There are certain figures in the Estimates as to the numbers and the cost of the troops in China. Can we have the actual numbers and the actual cost?

Mr. COOPER: The actual numbers are 7,420. It is impossible to say the actual cost definitely at present. It will be the subject of a subsequent Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. MAXTON: I have taken it upon myself, as a personal duty, to congratulate the new junior appointments to the Government when they have made their first speeches. Unfortunately, my congratulations have always to be qualified to some extent. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the appearance he has made in defending the work of the
Department with which he has been so recently associated. My qualification is with reference to his utterance on the question of disarmament. I hoped, having regard to his record in the War and his public utterances, that he would have been a modifying influence in the Department to which he is now attached, and I regret very much that he made that little peroration which postponed the achievement of universal disarmament as practical politics to some dim and distant date, because I think this is the most practical thing that we can do, both in home and in world affairs. It is so obviously the sensible thing to do, and why we should always postpone the right and sensible things to the dim and distant future in favour of doing the thing just now that is obviously stupid and silly and wasteful, and in this case both barbaric and brutal, I fail to understand.
I am sorry also that he imputes bad motives to the Russian Government in their offer to the League of Nations. Admittedly it is the foundation of all war that no one nation trusts the good faith of any other. The Russian people believe that all Britain's preparations in armaments, her poison gas experiments, her Air Force, her Army and her Navy are directed against Russia, and that the capitalist nations of the world are united in the League of Nations more for the purpose of protecting the capitalist system in the various countries than for the preservation of world peace or securing better relationships between the nations. It is the existence of this disbelief in the good faith of the peoples of other countries that causes all this tremendous expenditure that we are asked to vote to-night. It is just a lack of faith in the general decency of human nature. I am certain the ordinary Russian working man is very much the same in his attitude towards life and towards his fellow men as the average British working man. He wants to get on quietly and peacefully and in harmony with the working people of other countries. Assent is given to that proposition from the other side, but they go on to say, "That is true of the working people of Russia, but their rulers have malicious designs on the peace of the world," and that is just exactly what
the Russian Government would say about the British Government. The Russian people will say, "The British workers are all right, but look at this Government. Look at their record in all parts of the world. Look how they have terrorised and used their armed forces against subject peoples."
This always seems to me to be a tremendous contradiction in the discussion of this issue, that we are courageous, and we make a great display of our capacity to fight because we are afraid to go out unarmed to the world and say, "We are going to stand here and take what comes to us." It is genuine courage to say, "I am prepared to stand here and let the world do to me its best or its worst." We say as a nation that we are afraid to take that courageous stand, and therefore we turn all the mechanical ingenuity we can, all the scientific expertness we can, on to making our methods of war more destructive of the people we direct them against, and attempt at the same time to carry on the operations with a maximum of safety to ourselves. In congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the War Office I trust that, although he is taking on that responsible duty on behalf of his party and his Government, he will use his influence in the direction of persuading his associates that when an offer of disarmament is made it should be jumped at, and we should go half-way to meet it and to say any advance that any nation is prepared to make, Britain is prepared to make also, and better still that he should be in a position, when he has to appear before the House with the Army Estimates, to say, "We have been able, because of the arrangements that have been made with other countries, to cut down these Estimates altogether and the nation will not now be called upon to spend any more money in the maintenance of an Army at all." That is the type of speech that I believe would be welcomed in the House and in the country coming either from the hon. Gentleman or from the right hon. Gentleman who presides over the Department.

Miss WILKINSON: I am sorry I cannot join my hon. Friend in offering baptismal bouquets to the newly-born Minister. If the Government are going to have younger Members on the Front Bench
it is because they want people with new ideas, otherwise, they may as well retain the dignified stupidity we are accustomed to see from the older Members on the present Government bench. We have had one of the younger Ministers of whom, having read his public speeches, some of us had very great hopes. We felt that some of the courageous speeches that had been delivered to the League of Nations Union by the present Financial Secretary to the War Office encouraged us to imagine that when he got on to the Ministerial Bench he would be prepared to carry out, or at least to attempt to pay lip service to some of those ideas that he had propagated on the public platform. Some of us are rather sneered at in this House because we say from these benches what we preach on the platform. We have to regret that the new Minister does not preach on those benches what he has preached on the platform. Once again, that peroration which has drawn both my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself to our feet is in line with all the oldest-fashioned speeches that have ever been made on Army Estimates. The Minister says that everybody is in favour of peace and that you cannot get anybody who is not in favour of paying lip service to disarmament. The hon. Member would hardly say in the various clubs, of which, I have no doubt, he is a, distinguished ornament, that the young cavalry officers are in favour of this. Far from it. He would hardly find Members on his own side—the armament manufacturers, for example—were in favour of it. They see in the possibilities of war, the possibilities of enormous profits such as they gained during the last war.
I want to ask the new Minister, as one who saw something of the horrors of the War, why it is that every Minister must get up and say, "Of course, we are all in favour of disarmaments theoretically; it is all going to happen some time, but we must now begin to provides as rapidly as possible for the next war." Anybody who has regard to the figures of these Estimates realizes what some of them mean. For instance, the estimates for flame gas, the estimate for poison gas, or the estimate for research into all those horrors. The Minister will get up and say, "of course, these things
are deplorable and we should not have them, but if someone has them we have to have them." That is sound reasoning. You cannot send British troops into war without these things if other people have them. We know that that is logical. What, then, is the answer? The only answer is total, general disarmament. That is why the Russian proposal is not a wild-cat proposal; it is the only logical answer. Either you have to go on spending money, double the money and treble the money, if you like, that is put down in these Estimates—you have to go on with your research and on to the last word in horror of which modern chemical invention can think—or else you have to face the possibility of total disarmament. Though everybody says it is quite impossible and that we have to look to the dim and distant future for posterity to think about it, the only result will be that there will not be any posterity, because in the next chemical war they will be wiped out. It is so easy to sneer at the Russian proposals; it is so easy to sneer at those on these benches who are pacifists and to treat them as mere idealists, but I suggest that the right thing to do is to say that at least we believe it is possible and that we ought to work for it, instead of saying that it is impossible and that we must get down to the job of making the next war as efficient and as horrible as possible.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 153,500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: During the War days I had the privilege and honour to serve in a unit which was entirely new in the British Army. It was a unit which dealt with the danger that was thrust
upon the British troops in a fashion and manner the barbarians themselves had never introduced. It was the great and terrible devastating terror of burning poisoned oil and poisoned gas. These horrors were first inflicted on the British troops by the enemy of that period. I had the privilege and honour to be connected with the first British unit which was formed and trained in order to deal with that devastating terror. We had in our ranks men from the lowest grade of life, and we had in our commissioned ranks men from the greatest scientific centres of the British Empire. When we had perfected our guns and instruments in this country, when we had made ourselves the most efficient unit in the British Army—for that we were—and when we were conveyed overseas, and when we required trained chemists and pharmacists to improvise, make and supply the combination of materials for use in our guns and for the purpose of attack and defence, the one special difficulty that we had to encounter was that we found that we had to apply for such chemists at home. They were then traced to the different units and we found that they were being utilised sometimes as officers' servants and sometimes in the very lowest though the most essential part of the work, i.e., reveting, quartermaster stores, etc. In no case were they utilised where their professional skill was vital and essential either in respect of the wounded and the maimed or in respect of this new essential unit formed to deal with this type of warfare that had been thrust upon us by our enemies.
These matters were very carefully discussed by the chemists and the pharmacists of the country in the War days, and representations were made by the accredited bodies who had the control and guidance of these professional men and women, first to the Secretary of State for War, later to the Army Council, and thirdly to the Cabinet, to the effect that the qualifications and efficiency being wasted in work that could have been done by unskilled people of all kinds might be sifted out and applied to dispensing prescriptions for the severely wounded, and to the professional organisation of the Army which had to face a scientific warfare which, as I have said before, had never before been thrust upon any nation.
I am afraid that not much headway was made, either with the Secretary of State or the War Cabinet or even by the Cabinet itself. For some unknown reason, which we could not discover at the time, there seemed to be a distinct negation of any suggestion which came from that patriotic body, which consisted of 20,000 pharmacists, who heartily desired to support their brothers in the field in the way that would be most helpful to them and the country. As a result of a certain amount of pressure, legitimately applied in this House, it was made possible to have a conference. The conference was representative of the technical officers of the War Office, who carried the responsibility of the supervision of the unskilled dispensers used in the hospitals, and also comprised delegates from that great body of organised pharmacists. The conference sat in 1920 and carefully considered the claims and propositions which had been put forward during the War in respect to this matter. The whole of the ground was efficiently and thoroughly covered. The whole of the propositions of those skilled men who had inaugurated the movement and would have undertaken the responsibility of dispensing in the Army, the field hospitals and in the home hospitals in respect to preparation of the drugs and necessities for the fulfilment of the work, were thoroughly considered.
That council, as I have said, was held in 1920, after the War days. Nothing had been done during the War time, although representations were made in August, 1914, and were carried on systematically until the conclusion of the War, at the Armistice. Nothing was done, even after all these efforts, to utilise all this expert knowledge which was patriotically offered to the country and the defensive forces of the Crown, particularly the Army. The Navy utilised their services to the full, and in any professional capacity that was necessary. Every civilised country in Europe followed the same practice. In France, in 1914, there were 115 pharmacists in the Army, one carrying the rank of general. In Prussia, which formed a part of the German Army, 49 pharmacists were used, one holding staff rank. In Austria, 108 were utilised, all of whom were officers. In Russia, a certain number were used. In Italy, 126 were
utilised, one having the rank of colonel; in Holland, with its small army, there were 22, and in Belgium 54. In every civilised country in Europe this type of trained pharmacists were utilised in the professional expert capacity for which they were best qualified to be of service to the respective armies. After the conference in 1920 definite and unanimous agreement was reached upon certain points by the representatives of War Office and pharmacists.
It was pointed out then, as now, that economy and a proper spending of the taxpayers' money was a vital consideration, and that if it could be proven to these pharmacists that that which they desired to do, namely, to be responsible for the dispensing of the prescriptions of the medical officers in the Army, under the control and discipline of the experts of their own professional body, that is, by its commissioned officers, would be uneconomical, or that it would in any way interfere with the magnificent services of the medical officers of the Army, those 20,000 chemists would say: "We will not stand in the way, nor shall it ever be said that sick soldiers are in the slightest degree prevented from rapid recovery by the utilisation of our services, nor shall it be said that the heavy taxation to be borne by the country shall be made heavier on our account."
I do not desire to take up too much time, but it is important to explain the position, because those of us who are particularly interested in this matter and who had practical war experience in regard to it have been pressing it for years. The first resolution was that there must be a commissioned officer in charge of every accredited military hospital in this country. It was argued that there should be three commissioned officers for a certain area in London. Next that there should be given full facilities for those unqualified dispensers who had been operating under medical supervision to qualify. The pharmacists were prepared to give special facilities for these men to acquire the necessary education to deal with this important work. The recommendations of that conference have never been accepted in the slightest degree by the Army Council or by the Secretary of State, although the representatives of the Army Council and the Secretary of State accepted those resolutions unanimously.
To-day, instead of having three we have only two pharmacists so operating in the Army.
It was agreed by the conference that the appointment of these pharmacists would be an economical arrangement. I emphatically repeat if it could be proven that it would be cheaper to use unskilled labour in this work, and that the soldier patients would not suffer as a result of such unskilled service, and that the proposals of the pharmacists would be wasteful, then the pharmacists of this country, putting on one side their legitimate, professional right—and they have a right by charter and by Statute of this House—would, I believe, even now not be heard in the country to the extent that they are being heard to-day in complaint. The War Office at the present time are buying their necessary compounds already prepared to be taken by the patients, but if these could be made up under the control and supervision of trained pharmacists, if these drugs and ingredients could be prepared in the 12 or 13 standard compounds which are necessary in the military hospitals of this country, there would, on the market prices of these compounds, be a saving of from 50 to 70 per cent. in the cost.
There is another feature of this matter, to which I must draw attention. In passing I should like, however, to congratulate the hon. Member on his well-earned promotion, and I do so without any of the qualifications which have been used by hon. Members above the Gangway. Here is an occasion when he might commemorate his accession to office by the adjustment of the service I ask for. Again, if he suggests that economy by the utilisation of unskilled labour in the hospitals is perfectly covered and made fool-proof by the medical supervision that obtains, I want to say this, that whilst paying my full quota of respect to the medical profession, it is impossible for them to control and guide and prevent any error that may arise in the mixing and at the same time give cheapness of product which is essential by utilising unskilled labour. I have obtained from the Register of the University of Cambridge, details of the necessary qualifications for a man trained in chemistry in 1913 and later in 1927, and when I compare the curriculum of training which is given to the medical profession in respect to pharmacy with the training which is
called for in the case of a certificated pharmacists, I say that it is impossible for the medical profession, whilst at the same time acting as physicians and surgeons, to give the necessary guidance and supervision to unskilled men in administering and dispensing. Either the medical or the pharmacist work suffers. It is well for the Committee to remember that whilst criminals and civilians can demand their medicine to be mixed and composed by trained chemists, whilst a lunatic is also treated in the same way, the ordinary Tommy must have his number nines prepared for him by a splendid fellow, a good soldier, but certainly not one who is trained to deal with this most important work. I am not asking anything that is unreasonable. I am only asking that what obtains in every other civilised country in Europe and in the United States Army should be permited in respect of our own Forces. I believe the Air Force would follow in the footsteps of the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend, a few moments ago in speaking of the general vote, said—I took it down for purposes of accuracy—
The better article is that which lasts longer and gives better quality is always economy even if it costs more.
That was his definite statement and I ask him to live up to it. We do not ask for a great deal. We do not ask what we could in fairness claim, and what obtains in other armies. We do not ask for the 2,000 pharmacists who now dispense in the French Armies, and we guarantee that these chemists shall not be allowed to deal with gas for warfare purposes. We want the Tommies in hospital to have trained chemists under the guidance of the best intelligentsia amongst their own commissioned officers to serve them. We only ask that there should be not less than one commissioned pharmacist, possibly of senior rank, supported by an officer of junior rank in each Army hospital at home and abroad with a senior commissioned pharmacist officer at the War Office; or, if that is not possible, then an officer of senior rank operating under the medical officers in each hospital at home and abroad. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend can rely on receiving the support of the 20,000 chemists in the country and we will do our best to make the scheme as efficient as it has been in other parts of the world.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by 50,000 men.
This has nothing to do with the rest of the Army Estimates. We are not opposing the rest of the Estimates, because it includes money for pensions for a common soldier, and we do not want to lessen that amount. In fact, our idea in putting forward this Amendment is to leave so much more money for pensions for those who are left and to allow more money for higher rates of pay for services rendered. This proposal to reduce the Army by 50,000 men is quite in keeping with all the pronouncements of all my colleagues on these benches, from the Front Bench right to the back benches. They have all been in favour, no matter what position they take up now, of a reduction in the Army. Why are we as members of the working classes in favour of a reduction in the Army? I am not propounding the proposal of disbanding the British Army. I am only asking for a reduction. I represent thousands of people on the banks of the Clyde, who have nothing to fear but factors and rack renters, working people for whom the greatest trouble is not the Prayer Book but the rent book. The representative of the Government here to-night has been complimented on his deliverance, and I think I agree with all that my comrade the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said on those lines. But the former pronouncements of the representative of the Government are entirely averse from the pronouncement which he makes now as an official of the Government. I have read a speech which the hon. Gentleman delivered, where he said that we should welcome every opportunity for disarmament and that, in fact, we should give a gesture of disarmament ourselves. Now is your opportunity, but you have failed. You shrank, you ran away from the position—you, a heroic Briton.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I do not think I have given any indication of running away from the hon. Member.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, Sir, I know you would not run away from me. I ought to have been addressing you. I would ask, Sir, what does the working class in this country require an Army at all for? Do the workers of this country want to
fight anybody? What enmity exists between my class and the working class on the Continent? There is absolutely none. Is there any difference between the working people on the Continent and my own fellow-countrymen? Do not the Germans, the French and the Russians all love their children just as we do? Do they hate us? It is not true and it never was true. The only people who have bickerings now or at any time are the ruling class of one country against the ruling class of another country. My class have no quarrels and, at the moment, I ask this Committee to consider what have 1,000,000 unemployed men and their dependants to defend in this country. I can understand our employers of labour, like the Beardmores, and the Weirs, and the Aberconways, who own the shipyards and the big engineering shops on the Clyde, wanting to defend their country. They have something to defend, but what about my class? They are faced with the landlords and the factors who have decided to impose a 10 per cent. increase of rent. There are the enemies of my class—those who own and control the means whereby the working class of this country live, move, and have their being. They are the enemies and not any enemy across the sea. Again, this proposal for a reduction in Vote A of 50,000 men is in keeping with the gesture which has been made by the Russians. They did not suggest total disarmament at once. They suggested that it might be accomplished in four years, and this proposal is in keeping with that suggestion. Let us have this demonstration on the part of the Government, if they are in earnest, to show the world at large that they are earnest in the wish of peace. Unless some Power makes an effort to show the other Powers that they are earnest in the wish for peace, nothing will be done. Just think of what we have listened to here to-day! It has been enough to make one's blood run cold. I sat here and listened—and I have not even gone out for any tea—to the most blood-curdling stories that it has ever been the lot of a human being to hear. These were not German Huns who were making these pronouncements, nor were they Russian Bolshevists. They were representatives of the Tory Government on the back benches opposite—noble Lords and Knights of the
British Empire—and what were they talking about? About different kinds of poison gas and flaming gas and tear bombs; about dropping bombs from aeroplanes on children and
blowing God's image into bundles of bloody rags
as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the War. Our fellow-countrymen and women will read these speeches, and how can they think that we are sane individuals or that we are bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh, when we can sit here and listen to men calmly discussing ways and means of tearing human flesh off human bones and of tearing little children from the breasts of their mothers and throwing them to the dogs, and discussing, in cold blood, the most scientific, brutal, callous and beastly methods of destroying human life. And we did so after some of those who spoke had, like myself, to-day, listened to the Chaplain pronouncing that prayer that is recited every day here at the opening of this angust assembly, founded on the fundamental of "Love one another, as I have loved you." Tell me how much love of our human kind has been put forward here to-day by the present Government. Has the love of man, has the love of woman, has the love of our own kind for one instant entered into any of their minds when they were discussing this position here to-day? Not a solitary sentence has been in conformity with that prayer that we put forward here every day. It is a mockery; it is the height of hypocrisy. If we were honourable men, if we were fearless men, as we pose before the world that we are, we, would take that prayer and throw it into the Thames and be done with the business, and we would preach hell fire and destruction to the rest of the world in favour of the British Empire, because nothing else has come from those benches to-day. It was the British Empire supposing we blow the rest of the world to smithereens. There is no man within hearing of my voice who can deny that. That is the teaching, that is the dictum, that is the guiding principle of the Tory party, which rules my beloved land at the present moment.
Therefore, I hope that my colleagues will rally behind us, go into the Division Lobby, and vote to the best of our ability against this. We know perfectly
well that we will be called fanatics, of course. We do not care what you call us. We have been called all manner of names. We would rather be called those names than be them. But we are asked to be practical men, we are asked to remember that at any time in the immediate future we may be in a position to form the Government of the country, and, therefore, we should bear in mind that being so near to the power of office—[Interruption]—there is some hope that we will make a better job of it than you are making. We are told that we should remember that what we state now will be used in evidence against us when we are the Government of the country, and that we may not be able to do just as much when we are in power as we said we would. Therefore, having due regard to all those facts, we are not suggesting the entire disbandment of the British Army, but we are asking for a reduction of it. It is only the Army that I can discuss at the moment, and I have to leave aside the Navy and the Air Force, but we are satisfied that if we could have this reduction here, it would be a good beginning. Instead of us wasting all this money, we would have it for education, we would be able to see that our children were getting a better chance in life than they do get, we would be able to see that the housing conditions of the people would be better, that our hospitals would he better looked after, and that there would be more money for the general well-being of the people, instead of it being destroyed in this useless fashion.
It would have a tremendous effect in another way, because what can you expect of men who are taken into an army? What does an army mean? I remember that when I was taken before the Commander of the Forces in Scotland during the War, he told me that I would have to obey certain rules and regulations, and he said, "What do you think? You have to remember, Mr. Kirkwood, that you are no longer a civilian, that you are under my control. You are deported, you are under Army Regulations, and when you come under Army Regulations it is not yours to reason why, it is but yours to execute orders." That, is the negation of all that we stand for. That means that when you become a soldier you surrender your manhood, you
cease to be a man, you are under the iron heel of an officer. It is not yours to reason why. You have no right to challenge, no right to reason; it is but yours to do and die. That has a demoralising effect on men. No man is as good as the man who is free, whether it is in peace or in war. The free man is always the best man. Therefore, I move my Amendment, and I will divide the Committee and take my colleagues into the Lobby against this Vote A.

Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCE: I do not rise to approve of the reduction of the Vote, but to raise several points with regard to the Royal Army Medical Corps, and firstly with regard to the reduction of the establishment of that Corps, which is being made in the Estimates of this year, by 22 officers and 284 men. That is out of an establishment of 4,163—a reduction, therefore, of about 6.8 per cent. It will be seen that the reduction in the rest of the establishment of the Army is only about 1,000 out of an establishment of 140,000; that is to say, about 0.7 per cent., or only one-tenth of the percentage by which the Royal Army Medical Corps is to be reduced in this year's Estimates. It is mentioned in the Estimates that this reduction is due to the closing down of certain hospitals and a recent review of the number of equipped beds maintained in military hospitals. I have no objection to a reduction of hospitals where that can be effected, or to a co-ordination of hospitals, where that can be done, between one service and another, as has been done to some extent in the last year or two. I am one of those who believe that the medical services of the Army, Navy and Air Force would be benefited by the amalgamation of those services; but the reduction of hospitals must not be the criterion of the establishment of the Royal Army Medical Corps.
If the strength of that corps were to depend solely on the number of beds, and if the duty of the medical service were merely to look after the sick of the Army in peace time, a much better system than our present one could be devised. Why should we have men of the Royal Army Medical Corps doing duty in military hospitals at all? Such work would be infinitely better done by women nurses and sisters. The duty to be done in these hospitals is the training of the male personnel
for duty in war, and that duty cannot be done by women, for it is largely work in the field, although we know how much work women did in the late War close to the front. Therefore, the establishment of the Royal Army Medical Corps must not be allowed to be based on the actual beds that are required in hospitals in peace time. The proportion of men needed by the Royal Army Medical Corps, as compared with other branches of the Service, is based on the experience of many years, going right back to the beginning of last century. Time after time as wars have come there have been difficulties because, in the intervals between those wars, through undue economy the medical services have been reduced below the safety efficiency, and this has rendered them incapable of doing their work in time of war. We know the scandals that occurred in the Crimean War, and the great effort that had to be made to reorganise entirely the medical service after that war. The same occurred to a lesser extent in the South African War, and the nation determined after that War to reorganise the Royal Army Medical Corps and to make it a really efficient and satisfactory body which could carry out their duties if they were ever required again.
Their work in the last war showed what had been gained by experience in previous wars, and the Royal Army Medical Corps rose nobly to the occasion. There was practically no serious breakdown in any part which had to be worked by that Corps, although there was a partial breakdown in Mesopotamia, where the medical work fell on a branch of the Service—the Indian Medical Service—which had been starved in peace time. At the end of the War, the Royal Army Medical Corps had been proved and was not found wanting, but since then, with the cry for economy, there has been a perpetual and constant whittling down of the service. In 1923–24, there was a reduction of over 300 men; a year before a reduction of 63; and this year comes another reduction of 300 officers and men. There has been a considerably greater proportion of reduction in this Corps than in the rest of the Army. There is an idea that medical service can be improvised in war-time out of civilian medical men. That is not a fact. Anyone who had experience in the Great War realises
that where you have to deal with officers and men who have not received an administrative training in medical work for war, it takes them a long time before they achieve anything like the state of efficiency that is attained by Regular officers. There are many branches in the Medical Service which are not the same in peace as in war. Military sanitation is a complete service of its own and requires a different knowledge and experience from that acquired in peace-time, and it is impossible to improvise a service of that kind in the War. If reductions in the cost of the Army are necessary, and reductions in the Medical Service are made, they ought to be in proportion to the reductions in the other services.
In Vote 10 there is a sum of £69,000 for new buildings at the various hospitals throughout the Empire—all very necessary improvements and additions to the hospitals, but it is to their upkeep that I wish to call attention. It is impossible from the Estimates to see how much of the £1,314,000, which is to be devoted to the upkeep of military buildings, is to be devoted to hospitals. Last year circumstances took me to the great hospital at Netley. One cannot go to that hospital, with its great traditions, founded as it was in that wave of military medical ardour after the Crimean War, on the most beautiful site on Southampton Water, and see it as it is now without a sense of depression and gloom, and without feeling that we are not doing our duty to our sick soldiers in peace-time. Netley is the largest military hospital we have, and it is specially devoted to the men who are invalided from overseas. They land in England from hospital ship, and the first place to which they go is Netley. They go there and find it in the condition that I saw it last year—an atmosphere of gloom, a lack of paint and lack of care, the grounds allowed to go to rack and ruin, and this in a place where everything might be for the very best that is possible. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter of the upkeep of our hospitals. It would do a vast amount of good if he could visit them and, perhaps, before doing so, if he visited a good voluntary hospital, and compared them so that he might see the difference in atmosphere.
A year or two ago one of the greatest authorities on hospitals in this country said in my hearing—not with reference to military hospitals, but with regard to other State hospitals—that as long as a department was connected with the State bare duty might be done, but no grace would be added to that duty, and that there never could be a heart-beat in a Government Department. We do not want that to be said of our military hospitals. I do not think it was so in Wartime. During the War the nation rose up and determined that that should not be said, but since the War things have been drifting in such a way that we are not very far from that statement being true of our military hospitals—not for what has been done in the hospitals, but because of the way in which they are kept up, their gloomy condition, the lack of paint, and so on.
There is also the important point of the failure to keep up the establishment of the medical officers in the service. I know that is an extremely difficult point, and it is not at all easy to say why the service fails to attract duly qualified men at the present time. Looking at it from a fair point of view, I cannot say that the pay of the Royal Army Medical Corps is insufficient, but the fact remains that there are not enough candidates coming forward, and that the service is lacking in efficiency on that account. I think one of the chief causes is the feeling in the Service that it is a Service which is being reduced, and one which has not that sort of permanency which is necessary to keep up a feeling of esprit de corps. It is the constant reduction of strength, and therefore the increase of work which is causing a feeling of unrest among those who are already serving, and making them unwilling to get other men to join.
I have felt it my duty to warn the Secretary of State against allowing this Service to go downhill by a series of piece-meal reductions. The medical branch is not unlike the conies who were described in Proverbs as being exceedingly wise but feeble folk. The medical officers and their heads in the Army have not got that weight of power behind them to stand up for their particular share of the available Estimates, as have the other departments. It is the duty of
someone to bring to the notice of the country and the Government the fact that they are not getting their fair share, and that they are likely to be reduced below a state of efficiency. They have no direct representative on the Army Council. They only share one with a very large number of other branches in the Service, and, therefore, they never make their position known in the same way as if they had one themselves. The responsibility for the maintenance of the proper establishment of the medical service must, therefore, rest on the Secretary of State for War, the Government and the country. If in years to come another war came and the medical services were found unprepared for it, or incomplete, the country would cry out for blood, as it has done on other occasions. Somebody would have to be made the scapegoat. It is not likely that it will be the present Secretary of State whose blood will be asked for. It may be a long time ahead, and, perhaps, by that time he may be sleeping under the protection of the floor of Westminster Abbey. Whoever it may be, the chances are that the scapegoat will not be the Minister of that time or any other Minister, but the heads of the Medical Departments who will have to bear the brunt for what is being done now, piecemeal, in the way of reduction of a Service which cannot exist if it is not properly supported in numbers. Those are the points that I wish to bring before the House. While one realises that in times like these there must be economies and reductions, let not those reductions be greater in a service which is so essential as the medical service than those of any other branch of the Services.

Mr. KELLY: In supporting the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) I would remind the House that at the opening of Parliament we were told in the King's Speech that we were at peace with the world, and that our relations with all other countries were of a friendly description, and it is strange, therefore, that we should be asking for all this money and all these men for the Army at the present time. If the economy of which we hear so much is to be anything more than words, we require to make more than a mere reduction of £500,000 on the Army Estimates. To come forward asking
to be given credit for economy after having made only this slight reduction, is a begging of the whole question, especially seeing that armaments to-day, whether in guns, or gas, or of whatever description, have a far greater destructive capacity than ever before. We have listened to many speeches from those who have served in the Forces, and it is instructive to note the atmosphere which was created by the speeches of those who have been officers in the Army. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) who asked the right hon. Gentleman to see that before cavalry regiments were turned into mechanised regiments they should be consulted, just as, he said, people in industry are consulted before alterations are made. It is evident that there is need for another inquiry to be carried out, by the hon. Gentleman's party, because we do not know that in industry the people concerned are consulted before great changes are introduced. After all we have heard, told us in cold blood, of how particular weapons can destroy life, if we are still to live up to the professions of peace so freely made, we cannot rest content to keep on voting a force of 200,000 men.
Coming to particular items in the Estimates, one would expect to find that greater consideration would be shown to the men serving in the Army in the matter of improving their pay. If this Amendment be accepted, it will set free a considerable sum of money which can be used in improving the conditions of those serving in the Forces, and will enable the Department to deal with pensions, gratuities and other emoluments, and giving to the people who have a right to them better terms than they receive at present. In spite of the talk of economy, we find the War Department, not content with all the money that it is spending in this country, still going on with a great expenditure of £685,000 on the base at Singapore. In face of that, do they really mean it when they tell us we are at peace with the world, or are they misleading us? Then there is the expenditure being incurred in Egypt at the present time, and there is expenditure in various other places where they have not even been keeping the sanitary conditions for our troops equal to those obtaining for the civil
population. I must point out, too, that at the same time that we are getting rid of much of the cavalry we find we are being asked to spend a considerable sum of money on the building of new stables. I would ask, further, what justification is there for a land force of more than 200,000 men when we claim that at the moment no difficulty exists between other countries and ourselves? If the statement in the King's Speech be correct, the Government can surely accept this Amendment to reduce the land forces by 50,000 men. In that way we should show that we were in favour of doing something to ease the burdens on the people and at the same time be working in the direction of peace and disarmament.

Sir ROBERT LYNN: These Votes give hon. Members an opportunity of ventilating grievances which they cannot otherwise bring before the notice of the House, and I wish to ventilate one, though I would not present this personal case were it not that I am afraid there are other cases of much the same kind. It is the case of an officer who joined the Army in 1900. He went through the South African War, had a splendid record, in 1915 was made second in command of his regiment, and on several occasions commanded the regiment in peace and War. He was twice mentioned in despatches and received the D.S.O. In 1920, he was sent to the Senior Officers School to qualify for a permanent command. Hon. Members know that officers are not sent to this school, where they cost the nation a great deal of money, unless their immediate superior officers believe them to be fit for a command. This officer obtained an excellent report from the school. Three years afterwards, in quite a casual way, he was told by the Selection Board, when an opportunity came to command the regiment, that he could not be employed, and he was put on half-pay. I understand that only one member of the Selection Board had any personal knowledge of the officer in question. There is an appeal from the Selection Board to the Army Council, but four of the prominent military men who sat on the Selection Board also sat on the Military Council, so that it is like a Court of Appeal trying its own case.
A system like this is not one that conduces to the best interest of the Army with regard to senior appointments. Let hon. Members think of a man after 23 years' service being thrown upon the scrap heap without any reason being given to him as to why he has been discharged. Applications have been made to the War Office asking why this man has not been appointed to a higher position, and no satisfactory answer has been given. Probably the Secretary of State for War will say that all those who join the Army must be prepared to put up with this sort of thing. I think it is most important that young people who join the Army should be distinctly told that their careers may be broken when they are half way through without any compensation. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who has done so much for the Army—I think the Debate to-day shows that the efforts of the Secretary of State for War have been appreciated—to look into the case of my friend in order to see whether it is possible to remove a grievance of this character which, if allowed to remain, will have a great effect upon recruiting for the higher branches of the Army in the future.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to support the Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment made a very thrilling appeal concerning this formidable force, which, according to the view of the Government, seems to be absolutely necessary. On questions of this kind, the Prime Minister seems to have adopted an attitude of contempt for the back benchers who move Amendments of this kind. I realise the difficulty of the various parties, more especially when they are anticipating holding office. I cannot understand the somewhat silent attitude of those sitting on the Front Opposition Bench in reference to the Amendment which has been submitted this evening. Undoubtedly, there are quite a number of members of the Opposition who feel that, when these Estimates are submitted to the House there should be an Amendment of some kind in order to make a definite record of the position taken up by those who are antagonistic to our military system. I take it that we are now putting forward a protest against the whole Army system. When it comes
down to humane considerations, we are obliged to recognise the substance of the case which bas been submitted to the House. It would be somewhat beyond reason to suggest that Members of the House belonging to any of the parties were not prepared, theoretically, to recognise the line of argument and the strength of the appeal which has been made to the heartfelt conviction of those who think seriously about these matters. I know that the question of the practicability of taking up this line and putting it into definite operation is attended with considerable difficulty. After all, at the great Election which we are called upon to make sure, we are going to be adjudicated upon not as parties but as individuals.
We teach our boys in Sabbath schools the view that there is a great and Divine law, "Thou shalt not kill." We have such a law recorded upon our Statute Book, and it is administered in our Law Courts not only to the condemnation of any man who has been guilty of taking the life of his fellow-man, but also to the exaction of his life as the penalty to which we refer in the phrase "capital punishment." The peculiarity of the situation arises when the British Army is ordered to cross the frontier. Then we find a peculiar change comes over the situation. We have a suspension of the law, and the same type of judicial administration rebukes the man who is a conscientious objector and tells him that the law has been suspended for the present. He is told that, while previously he would have been hung for killing a man, under the new circumstances he has every expectation of getting a medal if he succeeds in killing a number of men under the new arrangement. I know there is a grim humour about the spectacle when it is presented in this way. The chaplain, in reading the passages to which the hon. Member referred, may not have been unduly impressed with its significance any more than those who listened to him. Whether that be true or not, there is the Divine Judge who is going to call each and everyone of us to give an account of our stewardship, and then we shall not be able to absolve ourselves from responsibility and culpability for backing an agency which is intended to decimate humanity.
Our country has had quite a demonstration of the power of the British Army. Lord Roberts once said that we had succeeded in securing a third part of the British Empire by the power of the sword. As things are working out now I should think our capacity for managing that kind of business has reached its limit. There is every prospect of a darker day in store for us, in so far as it is frankly recognised that another nation is now ahead of us in the power that she has monetarily, and in her apparent determination even to exceed all that we have done in the way of warlike preparations. What the Secretary for War has to face to-day, even allowing for the subsiding of the trouble in China, is the trouble in Egypt. That is going to be accentuated, and even there, in the negotiations that have been reported, we find an allusion made by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Leader of the Opposition as having adopted the same position as the present Foreign Secretary. The body of workers throughout the country who have been impelled to believe from Labour platforms that the Labour movement, politically, was identified with pacifism, will probably have their expectations seriously disappointed in that connection, even when the Labour party comes into power. There is, therefore, all the more reason for expressions of independent opinion from these Labour benches as to what ought to be the position of the party.
The conditions of our country at the present time are such as undoubtedly provide a great deal of inducement to join the Army. In the deplorable circumstances of the time young men have to say, "There is no hope for me in this country unless I join the Army. I see no way out. There is no prospect of a job." Because of these conditions the Secretary of State for War is able to give us the figures we have heard of those who have been rejected as unavailable for the Army because of their emaciated condition. I have often wondered how it is that we can manage to square our actions with the position of that industrial army which is now having to lie low. Over a million workers are appealing to the Government, "Here we are defenceless. There is little or no reserve force at home. There is nothing financial. The situation in the home
circles is meagre indeed. What can your Army do for us?" The Government say, "Join the Army." They give a man a knife and a gun and equip him for the purpose of taking the life of his fellow men, in lieu of what God Almighty intended him to have in this wealthy country. Wealth is flaunted in the face of these sufferers, to whom the message is delivered that the Army is intended for home defence. Where is the home defence?
In many of the homes of the city from which I come the people are absolutely at a loss to know what to do. Am I to insult their intelligence by telling them that we have an Army for home defence? They would spit in my face if I tried. Need I tell them about the defence of the Empire by a great Navy, when at the Employment Exchanges disaster stares them in the face and there is no work for them? In a London evening paper to-night I read an article by a noted representative of the Air Force. I had the privilege of hearing the hon. Member who moved the Amendment in a graphic speech depicting the horrors of what will undoubtedly be attendant upon the next war, and it is that that I have in view. I ask where are we drifting? Whatever may be the number of thousands of men, where are we drifting with our Army and Navy and Air Force? I see a Noble Lord on the Treasury Bench. There is a sneer on his face, and I never see anything else on that same countenance. I refer to the Under-Secretary of State for India. I do not want to make any further allusion to his action, but I think it is very discourteous. I have seen it done many a time by the same Noble Lord and it ill becomes anyone to do so.
Whether our proposals may look feasible or not, of one thing I am convinced, and that is that what we need
in this House is a more genuine expression of what men really feel in their own hearts, rather than the mere partisan sort of twaddle which is used in regard to Imperialism, about which we seem to be so much concerned. I am bound, as the representative of an industrial constituency, to say to the Government, "Your Army and any of the other Forces that are attendant upon the nation in that sense, are utterly futile, for the purpose of home defence, to that great
industrial force that is appealing to you with agonising look, coming before you and making an appeal to you individually, and to whom you have nothing to offer." The nation that has the greatest army and can make no better response than this to its suffering people is bankrupt morally and is bound to be doomed. There is certain doom ahead of any Power on earth that dares to set up its forces and make the claims that we make here—to take control and dominate in the various parts of our great Empire. It was said by His Majesty himself that the glory of the Empire was set, in the hearts and homes of the people. I believe that to be true. The real glory of the Empire rests in the absolute sincerity of the body of the people, in their full sense of conviction that right is being done and that justice is being imparted to those who are making such appeals.
I could not conscientiously fail to give some expression of opinion in support of anyone who makes his heart express itself in the way that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) did. It is our bounden duty to do it, and, whether it may be declared impracticable or not, you have given that answer, to those who are unemployed, that the exigencies of trade are such that you cannot do anything else for them; but you can find the money for so many hundreds of thousands of men to await the requisite call, and that call is never made unless in the interests of these vast financial powers that call for arms and for military force. The struggling masses of our people have passed through this machine of the Army. They have been trained to use language of a reasonable character before they go into the Army. [Interruption.] I notice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognises the strength of what I am going to say. When they do go into the Army they are impelled to swear, by all that is holy or unholy, and to make a rush at some dummy figure and drive a knife into it. [Interruption.] Yes, there are cheers from the generals; I quite understand.
You will never be able to square that as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said, with the reading of the Eternal Book. If there was, as we have always learned from the Christian standpoint, one supreme sacrifice, and one
only, then it is blasphemy to talk of other men being thrown into bloody massacre and to bring the great divine Christ on to the field, in charge, as it were of an ambulance. That is not the position. The Prince of Everlasting Peace and Captain of our Salvation calls us to greater things—to succour the downhearted, the strugglers, those who are browbeaten and smashed up like broken earthenware, as Harold Begbie said. That is the line we must take in defence of our people. If you build on the strength of blood and sacrifice and desolation of mankind, then there is one reward that will undoubtedly be placed before you at the last:
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that target God.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I briefly bring the Committee back to a point on which I am sure we have unanimity on all sides, and support what was said a, little earlier this evening by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby (Sir R. Luce) in regard to the medical services? Whether we believe in war or in the possibility of no war, in any case we shall want the medical services to be kept effective. I wish again to support, and it is necessary to support, what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend on two or three points which at the present moment are liable to suffer in the sweetness of peace. The reductions of peace-time are rightly made with a view to economy. and we medical Members of the House of Commons feel that we can rightly come to the House and plead for an extension of services in some directions, because we have suggested a limitation of services in other directions with a view to economy. I remember that at the time, now nine years ago, when I was making my maiden speech in the House, and several times since, we medical Members urged the absolute futility of keeping up general hospitals for both the Army and the Navy in peace-time at the same place, and, after several years have passed, the matter having been submitted to various Committees and reported upon, we have at last seen the reduction of these general hospitals one by one. It is a very difficult matter; it has to be done very cautiously and carefully, in order that there may be no permanent damage, and that there may still be the power of expansion
in case of need. Therefore, I do not suggest that it should have been done more quickly; I only suggest that there is room for further economy in this direction, and it is in that sense that the medical Members of the House urge the Government to continue their work and see whether they can economise further in this direction.
While we suggest economies of that kind in certain directions, we feel more perturbed when there is economy in the machinery for expansion in case of need. Obviously, the medical services consist of two parts. There is the greater part, consisting of physicians and surgeons—the tactical part, which can, to some extent, especially in connection with the Territorial Army, be improvised in case of war. When I say it can be improvised, I mean that they can be imported from the civilian services. But there is the other part, the administrative part, the nucleus of each unit, which cannot be so imported unless it has been trained. What has happened? Take simply the one point in regard to the Territorial Army. It was suggested that the establishment of the Territorial Army must be cut down in peace time, including the medical service, and, despite representations from myself and my colleagues in the House, the number of field ambulances to a Territorial division was cut down from three to one.
That is a very serious thing. Take, for instance, my own division, with which I have been associated since its formation in 1908, in East Anglia. They had one field ambulance at a centre, namely, Norwich; another at a centre; namely, Colchester, and a third at another centre in Essex. Those have been cut down to one only in Essex. What will happen when the Territorial Army mobilises again? The good will of the medical services in the whole of the rest of East Anglia will have been lost, and it will be necessary to rely upon the good will created by the one unit just on the outskirts of London. Therefore, expansion will be difficult. If that reduction were justified at all, it was in the sense that the one unit contained three sections, and each one of those sections could, in case of mobilisation for war, be expanded to form one field ambulance, and, therefore, there would have been three for the division.
That was a very good logical reason for the reduction, but what has happened since? That field ambulance unit has been reduced from three sections to two, with the result that the ambulance establishment of the division is reduced to two sections on the outskirts of London, and it will be necessary to form three field ambulances, in case of mobilisation, to serve the three brigades of the division. The result will be that there will be great difficulty in expansion, even as regards the structure of the sections, because it will be necessary to expand these two sections into three units, since it is not possible to serve three brigades with fewer than three field ambulances. Therefore, I maintain that the reduction is excessive, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the formation of one section of a field ambulance in one of the other parts of that division and in each of the other 13 divisions of the Territorial Army.
The personnel of the Territorial Army medical services is down by one-third of its full strength. In the Regular Army we have still the difficulty of recruiting. A list published in the "Times" shows that we have managed at last to get 15 medical officers as compared with the 60 that are required. You cannot possibly support an army in the field unless you have an adequate supply of medical officers trained for their work. I ask, again, that you should pursue this work of securing recruits for the medical service. I know the Secretary of State has the matter fully in hand and sees the difficulty in getting these men recruited. The real difficulty is not simply the question of pay, but the fact that the men now in the service are overworked abroad, and, instead of getting leave, they are constantly kept abroad beyond their time, the senior men being relied on to do comparatively junior work, because there are no junior officers in the service, and they are practically deprived of a great deal of their family life when they are getting towards the end of their service. These men do not give a good name to the service at home, and that makes it all the more difficult to get the junior men. It is a vicious circle continuing constantly. I hope the Secretary of State will pursue his movement one way or another for bringing the advantages
of the service home to the junior members he wishes to attract.
The Financial Secretary said efficiency is economy, and the efficiency of the Army depends on the efficiency of its medical service. That will give greater economy as well as greater efficiency in time of war. We have heard a great deal about the mechanisation of the Army. The whole idea is tending in the direction of mechanisation, but the machine is useless without the individual brain behind to work it. In each one of these machines all depends on the human machine, and the human machine depends upon the health service. At present, we are doing exactly what has been done after every big war. We treat the medical service as if it were an ordinary technical service and cut it down pari passu with the other services until, when another war breaks out, another force has to be mobilised, and again the medical services are found to he inefficient. These services are key services to the human machine, and it is essential that we should maintain these key services at the highest pitch. I wish to add my voice in asking the Secretary of State to give greater power and greater facilities for the expansion of the medical service.

Mr. BROMLEY: If the Amendment is forced to a Division, I shall certainly vote for it if I am the only one in the Lobby, and I have been strengthened in my opinion by the sarcastic interjections and jeering from the other side. It is necessary that we should make our position clear. I would rather stand with the minority for humanity than with the ex-service men, especially the high officers on the other side who, possibly on account of their Army associations, fear to speak other than with military, mechanised minds, and not so much with the strength of humanitarianism. It is always suggested, when anyone speaks on the side of humanity with regard to the fighting Forces, especially on their reduction, that it is a symptom of physical cowardice. I want to refute that. We are not all physical cowards. We are not all afraid of man to man contests. The military actions of to-day are not man to man contests. In the old days, it was the strength and the ingenuity of one man. I am suggesting that this
House, without disarming the nation, could take the generous, manly and humanitarian step of showing to the world that we are willing at least to make a gesture for a reduction in the armed Forces.
I put it to officers and men on all sides of the House, are not the histories of the late War pitiful reading? Are not they a record of mismanagement, of crass failures and mistakes, of men hurled into a maelstrom of despair? Is it not shown that on all sides reputations fell like a forest tree in a gale? Is it not proved that men were only dealt with as pawns? Why, it is a tragedy to anyone reading it. Here is an impression of the fears of our troops marching to the Front One man said, "I heard General So-and-so say that he will take a, certain town if it costs him a hundred thousand men," and another ranker, one of the class to which I belong and try to represent, said. "Oh, he is a generous sort of a cuss, isn't he?" That sums up war to-day. Even if it is considered an expression of fear, I am going to raise my voice in this House, just the same as I do outside, against a continuation of this sort of thing.
An hon. Member opposite interjected when my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) was speaking, "Read history." Yes, go into the splendid library of this House and read history. What is the history of war? Read the fine work there on the life of Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of Germany. What does it tell us? Wars have not been wars on peoples on any occasion since the old dynastic wars, which were caused because this King's daughter was not affianced to that King's son, have passed away. You now have capitalist wars, and the history of them, the chicanery, the deceitful diplomacy, the throwing in of troops, and the taking advantage of someone else, is something to be regretted. I will say this to the Committee; We who are in the minority to-day will grow into the majority. It is regrettable that the leaders of this nation—the elected statesmen sent to this honourable House—are prepared to carry the fight into the last corner for the old murder machines. I suggest that it would be better for us to face up to the position and vote for this Amendment to-night in order to show
that, if we fail to follow the gestures at Geneva, we are willing at least to say that we are on the side of humanitarianism.
I do not think that my hon. Friends who will vote for this Amendment are desirous, in a world in arms, of leaving this nation defenceless. We are not asking to abolish the Army. I at least would not stand for that so long as humanity and the world are what they are. But someone has to take the lead, and gestures would come better from Great Britain, with all the tremendous military, naval and aggressive history that it has behind it. Because this House, largely on account of our close proximity to the last War, is so thoroughly sprinkled with ex-officers, I am afraid we shall not get clarity of vision on this question. In spite of that, let me make it clear that I, personally—and I think I can speak for my colleagues—am not gibing at those people who have seen service and who now still cling to tradition. I regret that some of the finest instincts of mankind are used and prostituted for the purpose of warfare. I have never been a soldier, and I shall not be a soldier when you fight the next war. Make no mistake about that [Interruption]. Yes, and there are some soldiers who brag very much about the last War who were very many miles from it, almost as far away from it as I was, although they were strutting about in uniforms. I admire the spirit of the soldier who is still loyal to his regimental tradition. I admire the spirit of the man who is still proud of his old corps, and does not wish it to be
under-rated. That is one of the most wonderful instincts of mankind. But it is prostituted when it is forced into capitalistic murder, when it is used to turn men against men though they have no quarrel.
As one who knows many countries and who has friends in many countries, I maintain that it is not the workers of any country who fall out with the workers of another country. All that they desire to do is to work, to bring up happy children and to live the life which their Creator intended they should live. History proves that it is the mistakes of diplomats, royal jealousies, military officers wanting to try their new machines, that have caused wars. It has not been the people who have caused
wars. In this House, I have faced storms of abuse from hon. Members opposite when there has been a question of an industrial dispute, and I have been in the unfortunate position of having to lead the men in such a dispute. Hon. Members opposite, high dignitaries of the Army and of the Navy, have protested and squealed about the suffering that I bring upon women and children. What does war do? Let me pay a tribute to our gallant fellows who came back. They never tell the truth about war to their own people. They will tell their family what young Lieutenant So-and-So said when he fell down in the mud in the trunch, or what the sergeant-major said when the rum did not turn up; but they will never tell the truth about the real horrors of war, because of their bighearted manliness. They suffered those horrors, but they will not harrow the feelings of their relatives by speaking of them. But they do tell some of us, because they know of our sympathy.
It may sound ridiculous, but, if I had control of the preparations for the next war, I would have conscription of wealth and humanity at once, and, instead of starting with the gallant boys of 18, and working upwards, I would start at the other end, with those of 80 years of age, and work downwards. Before I came down to the gallant financiers and the great industrialists of the world of about 50 years of age, the war would have automatically ceased, because they would find a way out of it. We could more easily do without the old folks from 80 downwards than the young men of 18 years upwards. I have taken part in the Debate because of the sneers and the sarcastic interjections of hon. Members opposite. I want to range myself on the side of those who may not be branded as having physical courage. I deny that it is a question of physical courage to be blown to pieces by high-explosive shells 10 miles away. If the people who know would tell the truth, they would say that the next war will not be a holiday outfit, like the last. They can tell the people of this country that, should we go to war with a near relation on the Continent, such is the new power of aeroplanes and destructive agencies, some of the principal cities in this country and the principal cities of belligerent countries will not be fit for human
beings to live in within 14 days. We know that to be true. Let us have the courage to admit it, even though we hide it from the people of this country.
While this Amendment does not mean leaving this nation without protection or armaments of any description in the midst of a belligerent world, it does mean that if we do not at Geneva face up to facts, at least in this House let us say to the world that we are prepared to make a reduction in our military forces, and let the world see that we are honest in our intentions. That is all it means. I repeat, that if it meant any disparagement of the gallant fellows, on this side or the other, who fought in the last War and who hold sacred the traditions of their regiments, their corps, and their Army, a sentiment which I respect, I would not be so willing to support it. If it meant leaving us defenceless the same thing applies. But I suggest that hon. Members on all sides, I do not want to be hard but I must be frank, are hypocritical in their professions if they speak of humanity and Christianity—I do not care what their creeds may be—and then in this Debate calmly discuss not bricks and mortar, not the carving of a little bit of metal or timber, but human beings who are going to be carved and blown up and poisoned with all the horrors of war, with all its cruelty, its immorality, its brutality, its debasement.
Instead of treating this with hilarity and sneering when my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee expressed some of the finest sentiments of humanity, it is time hon. Members opposite faced up to some of the creeds which we preach and pretend to follow. It may be thought by some that the extension of the franchise will go on the side of retrogression, but eventually the mothers of this nation will say to statesmen of all parties and to high Army officers, "You make your capitalist wars, go and fight them; you do not get our boys!" This reduction will be a step in the direction in which we shall have to go, whether we like it or not. You tell us to settle our industrial troubles by conferences; and we are trying to do so. You have preached certain things to us and we are trying to do them in the face of the disagreement of our own followers. We are trying to avoid industrial war, and I ask military minded men opposite to be big enough to vote for this reduction
and show that they are as honest in their pretensions of settling international disputes by conference as we are of settling our industrial disputes, which are not so debasing and horrible as war.

Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a moment or to embark on the rights and wrongs of war, however one might be tempted to disagree from the scriptural exegeses of hon. Members opposite. Whether the soldier's job is right or wrong, nobody, since the days of Homer, has any doubts, once war is declared, as to the value of the doctor, who is described in the Iliad as the man who is a leech, who can carve out arrows, and apply healing presses. When I was on the Euphrates we suffered there discomforts which might or might not have been indirectly connected with circumstances on the Clyde. The soldier has three vulnerable points; his toes, his tummy and his teeth. As to his toes, he must look after them himself, and I am not proposing that a battalion of chiropodists should be included in the Army Estimates. As to his tummy, every doctor will agree that many of the intestinal complaints which we suffered in India, and Mesopotamia could have been prevented if only the teeth of the men could have been bettor looked after.
Even in peace-time, in cantonments in India, if your teeth go wrong, there is nothing to do but to have them out, and they are extracted in no very skilful manner by the first person who happens to be able to get hold of a pair of pincers in the orderly room. You cannot save your teeth if your teeth go wrong in India. Once they begin to go wrong in India they go wrong with great rapidity, and rheumatism, as well as intestinal complaints of all sorts, are undoubtedly attributable to lack of good dentistry. When I was in Mesopotamia in 1916 and 1917, I found that up to that time there had not been a solitary dentist looking after the teeth of the men. When a dentist did arrive he was a man who had given up a substantial practice in this country and offered his services. He told me in the course of a confidential and somewhat painful interview that when he arrived and said he was a dentist, he was received with a certain amount of derision by the high authorities in charge of the Army. I do not know what the
state of affairs may be to-day. I can only hope that it has been very much improved since then, and I hope, when the Secretary of State for War is considering the medical aspect of the Army, he will not forget that of the three vulnerable points, the soldier can look after his feet for himself, while the central point—which I have the delicacy to refrain from mentioning a second time—is the province of the doctor, but, unless you give a man adequate teeth with which to consume the very healthy rations which you provide for Thomas Atkins, he is certain to fall a victim to rheumatism or to stomachic complaints. These lead to permanent dyspepsia and sometimes cause some of us to display a degree of irritability in Debate which I need not assure hon. Members is attributable to no other cause.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: It is always interesting and sometimes amusing to observe the way in which many people will "butt in" on medical affairs. There seems to be some peculiar attraction in medical subjects, which entices Members who know very little about them to intervene in Debates upon them. We are now, I believe, discussing a proposal by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to reduce the Army by 50,000 men. I was rather disappointed by the hon. Member, because he made a very eloquent and earnest speech, but he destroyed for the moment a very definite opinion which I had formed about the Scottish Members. I thought, if there was one thing for which they were noted, it was their logic. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs knows that the Army at the present time is reduced to the minimum number necessary for the defence of this country and the Empire. He wants to reduce it by a further 50,000. Why not reduce it out of existence altogether? Had he made that proposal I could have understood him and admired him for his logical attitude, but to propose that we should reduce it by 50,000 men is neither one thing nor the other, and the hon. Member has disappointed me. We know that if we have an army at all, it must be capable of defending this country and Empire, and I am quite prepared to accept the word of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the Army has been cut
down to the minimum, and if we are to defend ourselves at all we cannot afford to reduce the number any further.
I wish to intervene from the medical aspect of the question, and I would like to associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden), who has discussed the question of pharmacists in the Army. The authorities at the War Office have taken the very definite position that the soldier in the British Army can be competently looked after by dispensers who have had a certain small amount of training in the compounding and mixing of drugs, and they think the training these men get in that short time is quite sufficient for them to look after the medical needs of our soldiers. They may be right, but the Navy do not agree with them. The Navy think it is necessary to have trained pharmacists, that is, men who have gone through a certain professional training and examination, and whose experience, of course, is very much superior to that of a dispenser, but the Navy may be wrong. The National Health Insurance under the Ministry of Health insist that anyone who dispenses for a member of the civil population must be a trained pharmacist, but the Ministry of Health may be wrong. The Home Office decide that our prisoners in our gaols must have their medicines dispensed by trained pharmacists, but they may be wrong. The point is that the War Office is alone in its decision that the medicine for the soldier can be adequately dispensed by dispensers with a short training.
There was a Committee formed in 1920, consisting of members of the War Office and the Pharmaceutical Society, who came to very definite recommendations, which have not been accepted, and the position at present is that either the War Office are neglecting the health of our soldiers or, on the other hand, the Ministry of Health, the Admiralty, and the Prison Commissioners are squandering a great deal of money. They cannot both be right. If the War Office are right, we should simply scrap all our pharmacists in the Navy, prison service, and National Health Insurance organisation, and get it done by cheap dispensers. If, on the other hand, there is the possibility—very remote, I admit—that the War Office are wrong, I think perhaps
they might some day be inclined to consider the advisability of coming into line with the other Services of the country and seeing that our soldiers have at least equal dispensing facilities with those of the civil population.
We had a very interesting speech from my right hon. Friend the Minister for War in introducing the Estimates, and we were very attracted by the alterations which are to take place in the force, particularly with the idea of mechanisation, and he elaborated very considerably what is to happen in the future with our artillery, tanks, cavalry, and all the rest of it, but he did not refer in any shape or form to the medical service. I make bold to state that an Army without its doctors is of no use whatever. If you went to war without a medical service, where would you be? It would not matter a rap what was the strength of your artillery or tanks or anything else; unless you had medical men to look after your sanitary service and to see that your soldiers were kept healthy before they fought, and unless you had efficient doctors to look after them when they were wounded, you would be absolutely useless. Yet what is happening? You find that your medical service year after year is going down. You have an overloaded staff of colonels and majors, and you cannot get sufficient captains and lieutenants. There is something wrong in the Service somewhere. You cannot get new material into the Army, and instead, as in the old days, of having competitive examinations and men keen to get into the Service, you have now to go to the medical schools and try to persuade men to go into the Army.
I wonder if the Secretary of State has inquired what the trouble may be? Has he done anything to see if the Service can be made more attractive to medical men? If he does nothing, after a few years there will be an efficient Army in every respect except in the Medical Service. The Medical Service is the foundation of the Army; without it nothing can be done. Unless the War Office tackle this question seriously, they are going to be in difficulties. It is no use saying, "We will trust to Providence, and in God's good time things will work out fox the best." It has to be recognized
that for some reason or other the Medical Service is not popular, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State to inquire specifically into this point. I do not think there is so much difficulty about the present salary; it is extremely good. One difficulty might be that there is too much moving about from place to place, and another is that when officers retire after seven years or so, the gratuity is not high enough. The War Office has to remember that they are competing with the panel practice and with all the public medical appointments in this country. When a young medical man, soon after he has qualified, can go into public medical service and work five days a week for £700 or £750 a year as a doctor, he has no definite inducement to go into the Army. A short service in the Army with either an increased gratuity at the end of the seven years, or, preferably, with retired pay, giving the War Office a call upon him at any time, would increase the popularity of the Service. If it could be arranged that any medical man who had served in the Army should have preferential treatment in any State or municipal appointments of medical men, that would further make the Service popular. I would impress upon the Secretary of State that the Medical Service needs inquiring into, and unless the matter is inquired into seriously there will be a very efficient Army in every respect except in respect of the Medical Service.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Vote A always provides a general debate, and frequently I have to reply over a very large field. Fortunately, to-night, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Cooper), in that very remarkable début which he made, has relieved me of the greater part of my burden. I need, therefore, only reply to the questions that have been raised since his admirable speech. There was one thing, however, to which he omitted to reply, and that was the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). He reminded me that last year I said that the title of colonel commandant was going to be got rid of and that brigadier was to take its place. It is. It is not a case of jam to-morrow. As soon as the Army Annual Bill is through the title brigadier will be legalised, and then you will have proper
power under the Army Act. It could not be brought in until it was dealt with in the Army Act.
Questions were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) and several other Members regarding the re-allocation of duties which had taken place as between the Master-General of Ordinance and the Quartermaster-General recently. There was a curious divergence of opinion between all those who spoke on this subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose agreed with the alterations so far as peace organisation was concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs not only disagreed with the arrangement in peace, but he very kindly suggested an alternative which, he said, would lead to economy. But the alternative which he suggested was a concentration of the duty relating to mechanical vehicles not under the Master-General of Ordnance but a concentration under the Quartermaster-General. So, really, I have support and assent of both hon. and gallant Gentlemen to a form of concentration, either under the Master-General of Ordnance or under the Quartermaster-General. So we have got this common ground that there should be a concentration. I will not attempt to argue the case for concentration.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: You are dealing with peace-time.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am dealing with peace only. It is agreed on all sides that there should be concentration, and it stands to reason that it is undesirable that there should be two departments conducting research and experiments into what is, after all, the same thing, because the only difference between tracked and wheel vehicles—the internal combustion engine being common to them both—is that in one case there is one form of chassis and in the other case another form of chassis. There is no real difference. The thing which is common to both is the internal combustion engine, and so we have concentrated it under one head. The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose, in the course of his argument, suggested that whatever was done in War should not be an experiment made at that moment, but should be the result of previous
experience. He did not altogether turn down the suggestion that in certain events it might be desirable to have a Chief of the Administrative Staff as the opposite number of the Chief of the General Staff, but he said that if you were to have it in time of war you should have it in time of peace. I agree with the argument that you should not have in war something you have not had in peace time, and it is because we are concentrating under the Master-General of Ordnance the whole of the duties of experiment, research design and supply of the internal combustion engine that we also attach to his office the duty of looking after it in wartime. It is the logical consequence of the peace duties.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Obviously, if you are to have in war a chief administrative officer under the commander-in-chief, exactly the same principle should be practised in peace time so that you may get accustomed to it. What about the quartermaster-general and the adjutant-general services?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Let me take that argument. The argument is really quite plain, and I entirely agree with it. The peace practice should be continued in war. The hon. and gallant Member agrees that the service of the internal-combustion engine, if I may put it shortly in that way, should be concentrated in peace time under one officer, under the Master-General of Ordnance. If you are going to carry out in war-time this peace-time practice, you have got to continue it under his control in war-time. The other difficulty that oppresses everyone is this, that you do not want if you can help it to multiply the number of staff officers who are on the staff of the General Officer Commanding in war. I entirely agree that it is undesirable to do so, but what happened in the last war? During the earlier part of the War there were enormous difficulties not only in the supply of ammunition, but in the ascertainment of what ammunition was wanted. Do we not all remember the controversy about high explosive and shrapnel? Why did that arise? Because there was nobody at the front whose duty it was to determine what was required and to tell those who were supplying it from the rear. I was at the Ministry of Munitions, and I know perfectly well during that
period how difficult it was to get a definite requisition for the inventions that were then coming into view. Even for the programme of shells, it was difficult to get a definite requisition, because there was nobody whose duty it was definitely to say what was wanted.
I would justify the appointment of a representative of the Master General of Ordnance on the Staff if it were only that he might be the liaison with the supplier at home. I entirely agree that the Master General of Ordnance at home, in the case of a great war, will undoubtedly develop into an organisation, not an organisation such as he has now, but a very much larger organisation, but he will be the nucleus of that larger organisation, whether it takes the form of a Ministry of Supply or a Ministry of Munitions. He will be the nucleus of the organisation round which the extended organisation will be built. He will want a representative at the front, so that from the front shall come demands for the type of supplies wanted at the front. If the war is on a national scale, if, indeed, all the extra work is thrown upon the Commander-in-Chief of concerting measures with Allies, which takes a great deal of his time, then, indeed, it would be quite proper to appoint a Chief Officer of Administration who would be the co-ordinator of the work of the three administrative staff officers, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General and the Master General of Ordnance. He would be the opposite number of the Chief of the General Staff, to relieve the Commander-in-Chief of any duties except consulting these two officers, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Administrative Staff. That method of organisation is provided for in the plans I have already made, and which I have exposed to the House in the White Paper on the Table.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: You have got the administrative officer that you speak of in every Command. Why not carry it on in peace time so as to be prepared for war and not make it then, because every war begins as a small war and gets to be a bigger war?

11.0 p.m.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It will be done the moment it becomes necessary. I am glad the hon. Member reminds
me of this; the Esher Report has been quoted against this plan. It is not really against this plan, because under the Esher Report, or, rather, the continuance of the work done in consequence of the Esher work, a Chief Administrative Officer is now appointed and now acts in every Command in this country, and it is only the extension of the same theory, which is working every day in the commands in this country, that I am proposing to apply in case of war. Really the case against the alteration of the allocation of duties between these two officers is one which ought to drop. Of course these officers do not want to have their powers diminished in any way, and you will never get a man who stands up for his own branch to agree willingly unless he is strongly convinced that it is essential, and I know that he takes a lot of convincing. Members of the Army Council who have not been directly interested in supporting any particular branch of the Service have agreed to this change. We have been told that we should have another inquiry. As a matter of fact we have been having inquiries for two or three years.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: May I ask whether the Master-General of Ordnance in charge of the artillerymen and the Royal Engineers is going to be the same individual, or whether the Master-General of Ordnance is going to be in the hands of the gunners?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That depends entirely on the man who is hest qualified. There is no monopoly in the hands of the gunners, and if mechanisation expands it may be possible that a Royal Engineer may be the best man for the post.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Or a cavalryman.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, even a cavalryman. The best man should have the job. They are quite different duties. The Master-General of Ordnance was an adviser upon the staff of the Commander-in-Chief, but he was also the executive officer of artillery. That office will have to continue, and will not be merged. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Sir R. Lynn) raised an individual case, and if he will give me full information about that case I will look into it. I would like to point out that
his remarks seemed to cast as aspersion upon the Selection Board, and I think that is rather unfair. The Selection Board have an extremely difficult task to perform. They have to consider the relative merits of a number of most deserving officers for one post, and some of them have to be turned down and passed over. They have to perform an extremely difficult task, which they do without fear or favour. Frequently the Selection Board have to choose between men they have known all their lives, with whom they were at Sandhurst or Woolwich. They have to perform a delicate duty, and they do it honestly and well.
One of my hon. Friends raised the question of the dentists. All I can say is that to-day the dentist in the Army is received, not with scoffs and scorn, but with open arms, or open mouths. There are 337, not all dentists, but dentists and their assistants, and so well are they thought of that 16 have been added to their number in the course of the year. The hon. Members for Royton (Dr. Davies) and the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden) again raised the question of the pharmacists. Pharmacists have a great many friends in this House. I have replied on this subject certainly once, I believe twice, and it may be three times. I am afraid that to-night I have to make the same reply as I made before. I do not know whether that will be sufficient. It is quite true that a Committee went into this matter and made some recommendations. Some of those recommendations we were able to accept and some we were unable to accept. Those that we were unable to accept were recommendations which would have involved a great deal of extra expense.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I feel sure that the Financial Secretary has reported to my right hon. Friend what I said. I showed that my proposals would result in a definite saving to the Treasury—that is, by the employment of trained pharmacists.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but nevertheless I have to say that his proposal would cost a great deal more in the Vote of the War Office. I was not able to be present when my hon. Friend spoke, but if he raised some new point I shall take care to read every
word he said, and if I can see any possibility of a saving I will adopt his suggestions, if the pharmacists support him. But as it is now we believe that dispensing in the Army is carried out adequately and economically, so far as the needs of the Army in peace are concerned. The Royal Army Medical Corps' dispensers receive adequate training for their duties, which are, after all——

Sir W. SUGDEN: I am sorry to interrupt again. My right hon. Friend says they receive adequate training. It has been shown that dentists are necessary and medical men are necessary. They have to undergo tests by examination. Pharmacists, too, should undergo tests by some statutory or other authority before they dispense medicines in the Army.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I know my hon. Friend's views on the subject, for I have listened to him on more than one occasion. I know that what I am saying is not going to be assented to by him, and he need not feel it necessary, therefore, to stop me, for I know he does not agree. I say that in advance. Nevertheless, as he has put his side of the case, for record sake I ought to say that we think the Royal Army Medical Corps dispensers do receive, not the technical training he wants them to have, but still, adequate training for the purpose, enabling them to dispense the prescriptions of the medical officers. So far as war is concerned, the system is designed to furnish in war the personnel that is required. The enlistment of pharmacists in the reserve will be welcomed.
I want now to deal with the question of the Royal Army Medical Corps, which has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby (Sir R. Luce) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.- Colonel Fremantle). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby complained of the reduction in the Royal Army Medical Corps. On this Vote there does appear to be a reduction of 22 officers and 271 other ranks, or nearly the 300 that he mentioned. But the reduction is due to the closing of military hospitals at Cosham, Devonport and Chatham, and there is, therefore, a reduction in the number of equipped beds required,
owing to a closer co-operation with the Navy, as military patients are now, in certain cases, treated at naval hospitals. That is a policy which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans has been urging upon us for years past, and I am sure it is a right policy that, as far as possible, the hospitals of all the three Services should be at the disposal of patients of any one of them. The Committee which has been working at this question has enabled us to reduce the number of patients whom we have to look after in our hospitals, and that accounts entirely for the reduction of 22 officers and 271 other ranks. As a matter of fact, although that reduction appears in these Estimates, some of that medical personnel have gone to China, and are carried in the additional numbers for China. Nevertheless, it is a reduction which is inevitable, and one which I cannot say ought not to have been made. Then my hon. and gallant Friend complained of the administration of the hospitals——

Sir R. LUCE: Not the administration but the construction.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He complained of the atmosphere. He invited me to visit them. I have visited quite a number. I have visited most of the big hospitals in England, and, whenever I go abroad, I make a point of visiting hospitals; and I do not think it is quite fair to say that there is a feeling that in these hospitals they are doing merely their bare duty.

Sir R. LUCE: I said that the Government were doing their bare duty.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know how the Government can be doing their bare duty only, if the hospitals are good and are looking after the patients properly. That, after all, is what should be done. My hon. and gallant Friend complained, I think, of the gloomy conditions in the hospitals, and the absence of paint. That, really, is not the test of a hospital; the test of a hospital is the medical service, and even the social service, which the patients receive in these hospitals, and my experience, certainly, of the Army hospitals I have visited, is that they are not gloomy, that it is not the bare duty that is being done, but a great deal more—
that real, human attention is being given to men who seem to be happy in the hospitals and content with the treatment that they receive there.
My hon. and gallant Friend seemed to suggest that the medical service was treated as a Cinderella service, that cuts were made upon it out of proportion, or perhaps even in proportion, to the cuts made on the rest of the Army. But that, really, is not quite so either. In these Estimates, out of a total of £41,000,000, £2,400,000 is being devoted to the medical service. Unfortunately, it is true that we have not the number of doctors that are required for our establishment. My hon. and gallant Friend said that that was not because the pay was insufficient, but because there was a sort of feeling that the Service was going to be reduced, and that, therefore, it was not a career for a young medical student to enter. We have done our best to make the Service attractive. We have had the whole position inquired into. I have conferred with my medical advisers and with the medical societies, and I thought now, at any rate, the terms and conditions of service were agreeable to the medical profession. I thought I had the endorsement of the medical profession. The short service to which my hon. Friend referred I brought in two years ago. Men can now join for seven years, and if they then wish to retire—it is optional—they have a gratuity of £1,000. Of course the hon. Member wants more. I wish I could give the Service more. Do not let him say £1,000 is nothing It is a very useful addition to the capital of a young medical man who is about to set up in practice.
Another grievance of my hon. and gallant Friend we removed. Majors were to be entitled to £1 a day retiring pension, and it was represented to me that their sons would not join the service because their fathers were complaining that they had not had a fair deal. That, again, was altered and a pension has been given. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who made a grievance that they were not directly represented on the Army Council. Of course, every branch of the service cannot be represented on the Army Council directly when there are only four military members on the Council, but the Director-General of Medical Services has direct access to me
as Secretary of State, and at any time of the day or night he can walk into my room and have direct access without having to go through any military superior.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The right hon. Gentleman told us £1 a day was too little and it has been altered. What is the amount now?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: £1 a day as I said. The Amendment takes the form of a reduction of 50,000 men. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) said he wanted a reduction of 50,000 because the Vote was 200,000.

Mr. KELLY: I want to correct that. I was including 60,000 who are in India. I should have said 153,000.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He has now found out. It seemed to me odd that his impassioned speech was made in support of the proposition that 200,000, which he thought was voted by Vote A, should be reduced by 50,000 to 150,000. The fact is that the Vote is for 153,000 men. But that is really about as good an argument as has been raised in favour of the Amendment. Of course, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) claimed that it ought to be reduced because of the Scriptural injunction "Thou shalt not kill." I wonder why that should be applied only to the British nation? Why should that not be applied to others against whom the Army would be used to defend us? After all, it would be fairer to think that the Army was there for defence against others. The hon. Member might repeat that Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," to others.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) had an argument of his own with which I propose to deal. He said that he would rather stand for humanity. I suggest that we would all rather stand for humanity. No one wants to kill. No one wants to have an army for offensive purposes. [interruption.] Oh, no! That is not why I am moving these Estimates. I am moving these Estimates in order that this country shall be in a position to defend itself against attack. A large number of other nationals may want protection as our nationals did in China. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness
suggested that he did not want to abolish the Army. Oh, no! He only wanted to reduce it by 50,000 men.

Mr. BROMLEY: For a reason.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In order to make a generous gesture. I am going to deal with that in a moment. Meanwhile, let us see what he wanted to do. He wanted to reduce the number by 50,000 men. Why should he be the judge of what number of men are required in the Army to defend the country?
He does not want to abolish the Army but only to reduce it. If we reduce it by 50,000 men we might as well abolish the Army as a defensive force for this country. He wanted to do it in order to make a generous gesture. Is a reduction of 50,000 a generous gesture? Apparently. I wonder whether he realises the reductions which have actually taken place in the Army. Does he realise the generous gesture that we have already made? Before the War the Regular Army was 236,000 men; to-day, including the troops in India, the Army is 207,000—some 30,000 fewer. The Army Reserve before the War was 145,000 men; to-day it is 88,000 men. The Territorial Army before the War was 268,000 men; to-day it is 141,000 men. Those, and other ancillary units, before the War, showed a total of 719,000 men; to-day the total, comparing like with like, is 472,000 men—a decrease of very nearly 250,000 men. Is not that a sufficient——

Mr. BROMLEY: And now will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how that may be balanced by the increase in other armaments, such as Air Force and tanks?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There is everything here. Tanks are included. The total of the Air Force is under 30,000. I do not remember the exact figure.

Mr. BROMLEY: What is your total fighting force.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member is not trying to reduce the present Army in comparison with fighting force; he is wishing to take away 50,000 men, and he asks us to do that as a generous gesture. There has been already a generous gesture; a generous gesture five times as large as that for which he is asking, and he asks us to add to that a supremely stupid and dangerous
gesture, which would mean not only that the Army would be reduced, but that its effectiveness would be abolished.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up the matter in regard to Aldershot, to which I referred.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend was not present when my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary dealt with the matter. He will find the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: At the present moment we have our representatives at Geneva discussing disarmament by agreement. The right hon. Gentleman's argument to-night means that we have nothing to give to the other nations in exchange. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have gone too far."] An hon. Member reinforces the right hon. Gentleman's argument by saying that we have gone too far. Therefore our arguments at Geneva as regards land armaments are utterly futile, and for that reason I am glad that this reduction has been moved, and I shall vote for it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to re-open the Debate, but the hon. and gallant Member will remember that anything done at Geneva is to be a mutual reduction, but this Amendment is not a mutual reduction; it is a reduction of our Army, without any corresponding guarantee from anybody else.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I only want, in a few words, to answer that statement. Under the Peace Treaty we agreed that when Germany was disarmed we would reduce our armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety. The French have reduced their materiel services enormously, and have reduced their foot services by a very great amount. In view of our mechanised Army and our Air Force, I think we should not put forward this non possumus attitude.

Question put, "That a number, not exceeding 103,500, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."

The Committee. divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 189.

Division No. 28.]
AYES.
[11.29 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sullivan, J.


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Wellock, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Buchanan, G.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardle, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Kirkwood and Mr. Maxtor.


Hirst, G. H.
Stephen, Campbell



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colman, N. C. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Goff, Sir Park


Albery, Irving James
Cooper, A. Duff
Gower, Sir Robert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cope, Major William
Grotrian, H. Brent


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Couper, J. B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Astor, Viscountess
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn N.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwick)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hammersley, S. S.


Balniel, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hanbury, C.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bennett, A. J.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bethel, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Maj, Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovli)
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd,Henley)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Drewe, C.
Henderson, Sir Vivian (Bootle)


Blundell, F. N.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bowyer, Capt G. E. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Hilton, Cecil


Brass, Captain W.
England, Colonel A.
Hogg, Rt.Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Holt, Captain H. P.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hume. Sir G. H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Finburgh, S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C,(Berks;Newb'v)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Jephcott, A. R.


Burman, J. B.
Forrest, W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francls E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
King, Commodore Henry Dounlas


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Knox, Sir Alfred
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Lamb, J, Q.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waidron


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Lieut. Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Phillipson, Mabel
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Lougher, Lewis
Pilcher, G.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Preston, William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Lumley, L. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Radford, E. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Gien
Ramsden, E.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tinne, J. A.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Remer, J. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Maclntyre, Ian
Remnant, Sir James,
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ropner, Major L.
waterhouse, Captain Charles


Malone, Major P. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Margesson, Captain D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rye, F. G.
Wells, S. R.


Meller, R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Merriman, F. B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Moore, Lieut,-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Witson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nuttall, Ellis
Shepperson, E. W.



Owen, Major G.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Pennefather, Sir John
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender


Bill read a Second Time.

PAY, ETC.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,023,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at home and abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,040,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NON- EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,580,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of rewards, half-pay, retired pay, widows' pensions and other non-effective charges for officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

PENSIONS, AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN, AND OTHERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,329,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the

expense of The Royal Hospital, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospital; of out-pensions, rewards for distinguished service, widows' pensions, and other non-effective charges for warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending Oil the 31st day of March, 1929."

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION AND GRATUITIES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £232,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of civil superannuation, compensation and additional allowances, gratuities, injury grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
We now pass from war to peace, and I hope the House will give a Second Reading unanimously to a Bill which will be of great advantage to the unfortunate lapwings and still more to the farmers. It is quite a small Bill. Lapwings are
perhaps of all birds the best friends to the farming community, but for some time past there have been difficulties with regard to the protection of lapwings because of the desire on the part of some epicures to eat their very succulent eggs. So far as the birds themselves are concerned, they are very well protected now. In 43 counties of England and Wales out of a total of 62, the lapwing is completely protected now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: All the year round?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, but in spite of the complete protection in those counties and partial protection in the others, there is still a decrease going on in the numbers of these very useful birds, and the opinion of all those interested in agriculture is that that is caused not by the destruction of the bird itself, but by the destruction of its eggs. That being so, while I am very sorry for the epicures——

Viscountess ASTOR: I am not!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think they can satisfy themselves with gull's eggs instead. I am afraid the only way of securing the real protection of these birds is to prohibit the taking or sale of their eggs. In these circumstances, this Bill prohibits between 14th March and 11th August, the sale of any lapwing for human consumption, and it prohibits altogether the sale for human consumption of the egg of the lapwing. I understand that the Bill received a unanimous vote in the other House, and I also understand, through the ordinary channels, that the Bill is received with great favour on all sides in this House as well. I will not detain the House any longer at this late hour, though, had I time, I should be delighted to talk at length on the habits of this useful bird.

Colonel APPLIN: Why is it called the lapwing, which is quite a country name for the green plover?

Mr. HARDIE: Why not the peewit?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think "lapwing" is the word by which it is known throughout the country, and it is a good old English name.

Mr. BARR: It is also known as the green-crested lapwing.

Lt.-Commander KENWORTHY: While I welcome the Bill, after what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Enfield (Col. Applin) has said, there should be a definition Clause in it. Not only is this bird called the green plover, but I have heard it in Yorkshire called the peewit, and the eggs of the lapwing might be taken by country lads under the impression that they were taking the eggs of the peewit, which they might not know was the same bird. If there be a total prohibition in 43 counties, why does not the Bill prohibit the sale of the birds or their eggs the whole year round? Why limit it to the period from the 14th March to the 11th August? Is it proposed to limit the importation of eggs from Norway and other countries? This country can do without them for consumption. If importation is not limited, you will have poachers and other unscrupulous persons selling the British lapwing's eggs and saying that they are Norwegian eggs. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the Plumage Bill we had to prohibit the importation of plumage altogether. I cannot understand what he said about the decrease of plovers. I thought that they were increasing, and it is very remarkable to see the numbers of them in the fields, and their great tameness and trust in man. I hope that in Committee the dates will be extended.

Mr. LAWSON: This subject tempts one to indulge in memories of the days when we were school boys and of the relations we had with these birds, but at this time of the night we are not going into a long discussion. I only rise to say that I am instructed from this side to welcome this Bill, and we can only hope that every facility will be given for its passage into law at an early date.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thank the hon. Member for his welcome of the Bill. In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), my information from the Ministry of Agriculture is that in the south and east parts of the country the lapwing is decreasing. We put these dates in the Bill, because the provisions in the old Act of 1880 prevent the killing of birds during the breeding season. The sale of the eggs is prohibited all the year round, and
that applies to foreign eggs as well as British eggs.

Lt.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will they be prohibited from importation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no object in prohibiting their importation when they cannot be sold.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to detain the House, but I have, as the Home Secretary knows, been considerably interested in the protection of wild birds, and I fail to understand why the House should be asked at this late hour to pass this most unsatisfactory Bill. It does not provide anything like a really adequate protection of the lapwing. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be surprised at my suggestion, but I cannot see how one is going to decide, when a person has an egg in his pocket, whether it is for the purposes of sale or for ornithological study. I am thinking more particularly of the boys in my part of the country, who ramble in the country and pick up plovers' eggs without any intention of sale at all. If they are caught by a gamekeeper or policeman, they can very readily be rushed into court, and the onus will be on them to prove that they have not the eggs in their possession as a commercial proposition.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider that point.

Mr. MAXTON: The other point in respect to a Wild Birds Bill is that I always think there is something contradictory to the spirit of a Bill which has a human basis when it provides an imprisonment penalty for anyone who breaks the law. There is something contradictory in the idea of shutting up a boy in prison because he has interfered with the lapwing's eggs. Here we have a period of imprisonment of one month specified. I am not complaining about the money penalty, but I do think that to place a penalty of imprisonment in a Bill like this is a contradiction of the spirit which actuates legislation of this description. I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I hope that in Committee it will be amended very seriously. I do say that the Government and the usual channels—because I am not saying that the Government alone are responsible—should realize that some
of us are interested in Measures of this description, and that it is not fair that they should be brought on at this hour of the night when the Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that I will consider in Committee any point that he desires to raise.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) [Money].

Resolution reported;
That it is expedient to provide for the application to persons in the Diplomatic Service of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, and to authorise in the case of such persons the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of allowances and gratuities under those Acts as so applied.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask one question? To-day we were told by the Prime Minister that there was no intention of keeping the House late to-night. I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that we have some observations to make on this matter, he will not withdraw the Resolution and bring it on another night and so keep the Prime Minister's pledge?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I think the Resolution is quite uncontroversial.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No.

Mr. SAMUEL: It rests with the hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they prolong the proceedings or not.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Financial Secretary not aware of the pledge which was given to-day to the Leader of the Opposition, who asked the Prime Minister if he intended to go on with the discussion of this Resolution and who received the reply that there was no in-
tention of keeping the House late tonight? I want to know if the hon. Gentleman is going to implement the Prime Minister's pledge.

Mr. SAMUEL: I understood the Prime Minister to say that he hoped to get the Resolution but did not propose to keep the House unduly late.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Some of us, if we had been as mean as the answer, could quite easily have continued discussing the Lapwings Bill until after 12 o'clock—or the Army Estimates—and it was because we believed the Chief Whip, who usually treats these things fairly, would carry out the promise, that we allowed the Lapwings Bill to go through. In the interests of decency a promise that is made ought to be carried out.

Mr. LAWSON: I myself was assured that the main reason for suspending the Standing Order was to pass the Lapwings Bill, and I think that was the general impression in the House—that is, after the Army Estimates had been disposed of. Therefore, I suggest that we should postpone discussion of this Motion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was present during the Committee stage of the Resolution, and what happened was this. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) rose to put a certain question and your deputy, Sir—within his rights, of course, I make no complaint, nor does my hon. Friend—imagined that that was the end of the discussion, and put the Question. There were protests and, in fact, a division was called, but was not taken. Several of my hon. Friends had observations to make on this subject. I was present during the Committee stage and I have said all that I want to, but I put this consideration to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was present and knows what happened, and knows that there is something to be raised on this Motion. I ask that it should be postponed. The discussion on it when it does come up need not be a long one.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Member seems to have overlooked the
fact that this is a money Resolution and that there is no need to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to take it. The Eleven o'Clock Rule was not suspended in order to get this through, because there was no need for it, and therefore we cannot be accused of breaking faith in any possible way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If that is the case, then the hon. Member has no complaint to make if we discuss it. I would recall that I put two arguments forward on the Committee stage which were not replied to. What we feel rather keenly is this; The maximum pension under this proposal is £1,700 a year and we cannot help comparing that with the pensions paid to other citizens of this country who are to-day suffering very severely indeed. The proposal allows a diplomatist to draw a pension at the age of 60—this is the point the hon. Member has not replied to—whereas there are 328,000 workers in industry over 65 years of age who cannot retire because they get a pension of 10s. only, and they are keeping younger men out of work. That is our objection to the Measure, and that is the point we wish to raise, and I invite the hon. Member to reply to that.

Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps I can shorten the discussion. If hon. Members press their point I have not the slightest objection to giving way, and to withdrawing the Motion, but it will mean hanging this matter up and may produce some hardship to those who are concerned.

Ordered. "That the Debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the cluck upon Thursday, Mr. SPEAKER, adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.